Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job disclosing the key behavioral trait: the audit is probabilistic and 3x sampled, may miss issues or produce false positives, and critical findings need manual verification. It does not mention cost, latency, rate limits or what the caller receives, but the caveat disclosure is unusually honest and valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then capability detail, then limitations. Dense but mostly earns its place; the blog-case URL is the only clearly expendable element.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description should clarify input selection and expected return shape. It covers capability and caveats well but leaves the entire calling contract (which parameter, which format, what comes back) unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% across 6 ambiguous parameters (code, lang, source, contract, language, source_b64), and the description adds no guidance on them. It never explains the code vs source vs source_b64 distinction or the lang vs language overlap, leaving the agent to guess which input field to populate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource combination — AI-driven smart contract security audit covering solidity/rust/move — which is more specific than most siblings. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like x402-smart-contract-audit, x402-contract-scan, or x402-contract-triage, so an agent cannot tell which audit tool to pick without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied (audit a contract for vulnerabilities) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling audit tools. The LIMITATIONS paragraph hints that this is a first-pass/triage tool rather than proof, but does not state when another tool should be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.