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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It says the tool performs a quick risk assessment, but doesn't clarify whether it reads source code, queries on-chain data, returns a score, or what its limitations are.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key idea of quick risk assessment. The slight redundancy of 'Contract Triage: Smart contract triage' is minor, and there is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool lacks annotations, has no output schema, and has three ambiguous parameters. The description does not explain what output to expect, how parameters should be populated, or what makes this triage distinct from more thorough contract audit tools, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The schema descriptions are generic ('Input to process', 'Address to process', 'Contract to process'), and the description doesn't clarify the relationship between input, address, and contract.

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 recognizable purpose: smart contract triage and quick risk assessment. It identifies both the resource (contracts) and the kind of analysis (risk triage), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like contract-scan or smart-contract-audit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related contract/security tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. An agent only sees 'quick risk assessment' and must infer the intended use case.

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