audit_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, return values, or operational risks, and merely redirecting to an equally undescribed sibling does not provide transparency.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting substantive information, so it is not a model of effective conciseness.

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 1-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what an audit is, what contract address means, what outcome to expect, or how this tool differs from its siblings.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the required 'address' parameter. The agent is left without any explanation of what the address should be, what format it requires, or how it affects the audit behavior.

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 only says 'Alias for m2m_audit_contract' and does not state what the tool actually does. It names a sibling relation rather than a verb, resource, or outcome, so an agent cannot determine the tool's function from the description alone.

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 guidance about when to use audit_contract versus any of its siblings, including m2m_audit_contract itself. The alias implies equivalence but offers no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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