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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates the basic intent but discloses nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what inputs are required, how the contract is resolved, or what a scan actually entails.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and readable, though the information content is minimal enough that conciseness is achieved partly by omission.

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 security-related tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two optional parameters, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It does not explain how the address and contract parameters relate, what vulnerabilities are checked, or how results are returned.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the descriptions 'Address to process' and 'Contract to process' are generic and do not clarify the distinction between the two parameters or when each is needed.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Scan a smart contract for vulnerabilities.' It is specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose, though it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like x402-smart-contract-audit or x402-contract-triage.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The plural sibling set contains many overlapping security/scanning tools, so the lack of any 'use this when' or 'instead of X' guidance leaves agents to guess.

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