registry / verify_contract

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by clarifying the shallow depth of the check (existence only, not bytecode verification), but leaves behavior unspecified: it does not say whether a missing contract yields a false or an error, nor what 'pinned' constrains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope stated first and the disambiguation second. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation covering return values, the description should say what a check produces and how a negative result is surfaced. Combined with zero documented parameters, an agent knows roughly what the tool is for but not what to pass or expect back.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden here and mostly drops it. It never explains that 'name' identifies the contract or what 'task' means in this context, leaving one required parameter and one optional parameter semantically opaque.

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 sentence names a specific verb (check) and a specific resource (pinned Rootstock contract code) scoped to the selected chain, and the trailing clause rules out a nearby misreading (bytecode audit). It stops short of distinguishing the tool from registry siblings such as resolve_deployment or list_contracts, and 'pinned' is internal jargon the agent must guess at.

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?

'not a bytecode audit' is a useful negative boundary that implicitly routes code-correctness questions elsewhere. But there is no positive when-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many registry.* siblings, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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