Contract verification

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest of the burden. It discloses that two external services are queried and enumerates what Blockscout returns (name, compiler, licence, proxy and implementations), which tells the agent this is an open-world network call with a variable result shape.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the core question is front-loaded and the supporting detail about data sources and returned fields follows. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description compensates by naming the fields Blockscout surfaces, which is the right material to include. It omits failure/unverified behavior, per-chain differences, and any rate-limit or latency note, leaving minor gaps for a two-parameter read tool.

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 50%: chain carries an enum plus description, address carries only a regex pattern. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the address is a contract, which is a marginal semantic hint. Baseline 3 is defensible because the schema already constrains both parameters tightly (enum and 0x-40-hex pattern).

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 states a specific question ('Is a contract's source verified?') and names the exact upstream sources consulted (Sourcify full/partial match, Blockscout). An agent can tell this apart from read-only siblings like inspect_address, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tools named. The agent must infer from the phrasing that this is the verification-status lookup rather than, say, inspect_address or abi_utils, with no stated condition selecting one over the other.

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