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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered there. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no wallet needed, no verdict or score, observed on-chain facts only, rate limiting with a monthly quota. This goes beyond the annotations and sets correct expectations about limitations.

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 sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded: 'Free, no wallet' and 'no verdict and no score'. The description then efficiently lists what the check covers and closes with practical rate-limit information. Every clause 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide whether and how to call it. It explains the free/no-wallet nature, the output scope (facts, not verdicts), the main returned fact types, and the rate-limit constraint. No critical information appears missing.

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 covers the single parameter fully with a regex, a description of the expected address, and a network qualifier. The tool description reinforces that this is a Base address and mentions B20 native tokens, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: it performs a free check of a Base address/contract. It clearly scopes the tool to observed on-chain facts with no verdict and no score, and enumerates the fact categories (verified source, proxy detection, admin selectors, holder concentration, issuer powers). This strongly differentiates it from the flash-audit siblings, which imply paid, scored audit outcomes.

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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: free, no wallet required, and useful for quick on-chain facts without a verdict/score. It also warns about rate limiting and monthly quota. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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