m2m_audit_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the critical nuance that this is 'factual capability observation only, not a safety or exploitability guarantee,' which goes beyond annotation defaults and prevents misuse.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the safety disclaimer and then sibling differentiation. Every clause serves a distinct purpose.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, limitations, and distinguishes from siblings. While there's no output schema, the enumerated capabilities imply the return content, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the address parameter is fully documented (format, chainId). The description adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond restating 'single Base contract address.' Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Inspect') and resource ('static bytecode capabilities... for a single Base contract address'), and enumerates example capabilities (mint, pause, freeze, upgradeability slots). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to inspect a single Base contract's bytecode capabilities) and names alternatives (m2m_get_service_status and legacy score-only endpoints) with their focus, giving the agent routing context. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the distinction is clear.

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