m2m_audit_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that results are 'selected' and therefore not exhaustive, proxy resolution is only 'common', and it explicitly disclaims safety or exploitability guarantees. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but the tool is clearly a read-only observation query.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and output categories, and the second sentence adds a critical caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description communicates what will be returned (capability observations, proxy resolution, limitations, provenance) and what the return does not imply (safety). It omits exact output field names, but the categorical description is sufficient for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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%: the one parameter, address, is described as a Base contract address with a 0x... format. The tool description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter itself but reinforces the Base contract context. This is the expected baseline when the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource: selected static bytecode capability observations, common proxy resolution, limitations, and provenance for a Base contract. It also separates itself from a generic security audit by stating it is not a safety or exploitability guarantee, which distinguishes it from sibling audit_contract.

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 gives clear context: it is for Base contracts and provides factual capability observations, not safety verdicts. The explicit 'not a safety or exploitability guarantee' sentence tells the agent when not to rely on it, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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