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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: the output is a 0-100 risk score derived from on-chain checks plus GoPlus, and the "Not an audit" caveat sets expectations. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, and what the score components or thresholds mean, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded — the purpose leads, followed by args and output semantics in short fragments. The telegraphic "Args:" style is efficient though slightly clunky.

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 two-parameter read-only scan with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameter formats, the chain enumeration, the output shape (0-100 score), and its data sources. Missing only score interpretation and sibling differentiation, which are minor gaps here.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value: it lists the accepted chain values (ethereum|base|arbitrum|optimism|polygon|bsc|avalanche) even though the schema's chain property has no enum and only says "Chain name". It also gives the address format hint (0x...).

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Full token security scan", which clearly signals a broader risk assessment rather than a narrow check. It implicitly distinguishes itself from honeypot_check and simulate_transfer through the word "Full", but 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?

Usage is implied by "Full token security scan" and qualified by "Not an audit", which clarifies the tool's scope limit. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over honeypot_check or simulate_transfer, and no stated prerequisites.

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