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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: generated-from-Solidity provenance, source revision in the response, the ok:false + accepted-list failure mode for unknown names, and 'Pure lookup, no RPC' (relevant given openWorldHint=false).

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns and its provenance, how to use it (with the `errors` case), and the return shape plus failure mode. Front-loaded and 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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still gives the return shape ({ contract, revision, abi }) and the error envelope, plus the special-case behavior of `errors`. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% and the enum already lists meanings, so baseline applies. The description adds semantic value by explaining the intended use of the `errors` value (decode reverts) and tying `contract` selection to addresses from get_deployments, which is more than the schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve the JSON ABI of a BlazePhoenix contract, generated from Solidity sources with its source revision). This is clearly different from the siblings get_deployments (addresses), prepare_quote/decode_quote (quote operations), and names an output shape.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to encode your own calls to addresses from get_deployments, or pass `errors` to decode revert reasons from a failed swap/quote. It names the routing dependency (get_deployments) and the special-case enum value that changes the tool's purpose.

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