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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It honestly discloses the pay-per-call cost and outlines the returned information. It does not explicitly say the call is read-only, but the predicate/check wording strongly implies it.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, output scope, and pricing with no filler. Key information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but it does not specify return formatting or behavior for non-contract addresses. It names bytecode size and ERC-20 metadata but not their structure, and it lacks usage guidance to disambiguate from sibling tools.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'address' parameter fully, with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level syntax, formatting, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's job: determine whether a base address is a contract, plus return bytecode size and ERC-20 metadata. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like base_balance or base_token. The verb is implied by 'whether' but unmistakable.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as base_token or polygon_contract. The pay-per-call note is operational context, not usage direction. No exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules are provided.

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