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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that findings can be stale and that the result indicates when a fresh check is needed, that a shared symbol resolves to one token, and that absence of a flag is not a guarantee of safety. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know before trusting the output.

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?

The description is about 80 words yet packs purpose, usage, and caveats into a tight, front-loaded structure. Each sentence adds value: the first states the function and scope, the second gives routing guidance, and the third covers staleness and resolution caveats. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells what data is returned, when to use it instead of an alternative, and what limitations to be aware of. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results safely.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' but only describes it as 'Token symbol'. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that a shared symbol resolves to one of several tokens, which is crucial for interpreting results. This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify the symbol format (e.g., ticker vs. address) or that it's case-insensitive, so a 4 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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('on-chain contract-safety findings (GoPlus) for a token'), then enumerates exactly what the findings cover (honeypot, mintable, ownership renounced, hidden owner, transfer-pausable, holder concentration). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_token_risk by stating the alternative is for an overall risk picture, so an agent can immediately tell which tool fits.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use it when the question is specifically about the token's contract; use check_token_risk for an overall risk picture.' It also warns about staleness and symbol ambiguity, which directly affect when and how an agent should rely on results. No guesswork is needed.

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