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

With no annotations, the description discloses cost, sharing, bounded check, and credit mechanism, contributing valuable behavioral context. It doesn't mention read-only nature or return format, but the cost and sharing details exceed typical descriptions.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and efficient details. Every sentence adds value, including cost and sharing, without redundancy.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, detection scope, and cost model, but doesn't describe the return format or error behavior. Given the complexity, it's reasonably complete but with notable gaps.

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% with a well-described address parameter. The description doesn't add any syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 detects ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-165, and EIP-1967 proxy slots in one bounded check, which is a specific verb+resource. The title reinforces the purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like token_metadata or contract_change.

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 implies usage (detect contract standard) but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. It provides clear context around the tool's function and cost model, but no comparison to sibling tools.

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