explain_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the nature of the result ('plain-language meaning'), which implies a read-only lookup. However, it says nothing about behavior for an unrecognized code (error vs fallback text), authentication needs, or whether the code list is fixed, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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 no filler; the examples at the end earn their place by anchoring the expected input format. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 low-complexity lookup with no output schema, the core purpose is covered and return values need not be detailed further. It is still incomplete regarding the 'lang' parameter's accepted values and the error behavior for unknown codes, which an agent would want before calling it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add semantic value for the required 'code' parameter by giving example values (HONEYPOT, LP_UNLOCKED), but it never mentions the 'lang' parameter at all, nor any format/case rules for codes, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific resource (a RugRadar finding code) and the exact output (its plain-language meaning), with concrete examples (HONEYPOT, LP_UNLOCKED) that make the purpose unmistakable. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but none of check_token/get_report/scan_message/token_history overlaps enough to create ambiguity.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to or from siblings such as get_report or check_token, which are the likely sources of the codes this tool decodes. Usage is only inferable from the purpose sentence itself.

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