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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the output (implementation address) even though no output schema exists, and 'detection' implies a read-only probe, but it never states what is returned for a non-proxy contract, whether the address must be checksummed, or any rate-limit/auth characteristics.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the supporting detail (patterns and return value). Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only detection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential pieces: what it detects, which standards, and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around non-proxy return behavior and input format expectations.

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 0% and there is one nested object parameter, so the description must compensate. Mentioning 'Base contract' implies the nested address is the contract to inspect, but it adds no format, validation, or network-scoping detail beyond what the schema shape already conveys.

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 gives a specific verb (detect/check) and resource (Base contract proxy), plus the exact patterns it recognizes (EIP-1967 transparent/UUPS, beacon, EIP-1822) and the return value. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like base_contract or base_code, though it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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?

Framing it as a yes/no question ('Is this Base contract an upgradeable proxy?') implies the use case of checking a contract before interacting with it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives (e.g. base_code/base_storage), and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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