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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read/write nature, no auth or payment requirements, no rate limits, no indication of what the assessment returns or how deep it goes.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence repeats the name instead of using the space to convey useful information.

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?

A three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation is left completely underspecified. An agent cannot reliably determine what to pass or what to expect from the result.

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?

Three parameters (input, address, contract) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of any of them. It is unclear whether these are alternatives, what format each expects, or which to supply.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Contract Triage' followed by 'Smart contract triage'. 'Quick risk assessment' adds only a vague modifier and does not distinguish this from close siblings like x402-contract-scan, x402-smart-contract-audit, or x402-token-risk-report.

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 on when to use this versus the many other contract/audit tools in the sibling list. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no stated input situation that selects this tool over alternatives.

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