inspect_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description has a lower burden for side-effect disclosure. It adds value by stating exactly what information the call surfaces: verification status, proxy status, ownership, and risky-function summaries. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and object ('Inspect a smart contract') and then lists the queries it answers. Every clause carries substantive information and there is no filler, but the density of the list makes it slightly less scannable than a two-sentence structure.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields; it already conveys the high-level answers the tool provides. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among sibling tools, but the strong purpose clarity and well-documented schema make the tool fully invokable.

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 100%: both chain and contract_address already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it only hints at the tool's overall purpose. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Inspect a smart contract') and then enumerates exact outputs: verification status, proxy status, owner/control type, and high-risk function summaries. These specifics distinguish it from sibling tools like score_risk or check_token_risk, even without naming them.

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 provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it name alternatives like score_risk or check_token_risk. Usage is only implied by the contract-inspection context, leaving an agent to infer when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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