Pentagonal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns comprehensive intelligence report, supports multiple blockchains (EVM and Solana), auto-detects chain if omitted, and mentions performance considerations ('Use specific fields for faster, focused queries'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. First sentence states core purpose, second lists return data, third provides usage guidance, fourth specifies blockchain support and auto-detection. Every sentence adds value and is appropriately front-loaded with the most important 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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema, the description provides good context about what data is returned and usage guidance. However, it doesn't describe the return format structure or potential limitations (like rate limits), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that the tool 'Returns the full intelligence report' and lists specific examples of what that includes (price, market cap, security flags, etc.), which helps users understand what data they'll get. It also clarifies the 'fields' parameter purpose: 'Use specific fields for faster, focused queries.'

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up any token or smart contract by address' and specifies what it returns ('full intelligence report' with detailed examples like price, market cap, security flags). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on lookup/analysis rather than audit, fix, or generation functions.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before auditing to understand the full token landscape.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like pentagonal_audit. It also mentions 'Supports EVM and Solana tokens' and chain auto-detection, giving practical context.

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