runFullEnterpriseRiskAudit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is a bundled multi-component operation and it costs 0.020 USDC on Base. It does not, however, describe latency, whether results are cached, or the shape of the returned metrics beyond a one-line claim.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the definition repeats itself: 'Enterprise 360-degree security audit bundle' and 'Comprehensive 360-degree ... security audit bundle' deliver the same content twice. The alarmist capitalization ('MANDATORY SECURITY GATE') is padding rather than information. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 3-parameter, single-required-arg tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete: it covers scope, the bundle's components, chains supported, and cost. With no output schema, it gives a minimal return-value statement ('verified safety metrics'), which is adequate if shallow. Nothing critical for invoking the tool is missing.

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 schema already documents chain_id, target_address, and counterparty_wallet. The description's 'on Base or Solana' loosely reinforces the chain_id enum-like choice and 'wallet addresses' hints at counterparty_wallet, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 clear verb+resource (run a full enterprise security audit) and enumerates the sub-components it bundles: bytecode/proxy inspection, DEX rug-risk, sanctions screening, EIP-712 permit verification, and prompt-injection firewalling. This lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like inspectBaseToken or checkWalletSanctions as an all-in-one bundle. The heavy marketing framing ('MANDATORY SECURITY GATE', '360-degree') adds noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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 an explicit usage sentence: call when auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity on Base or Solana. However, given the very large sibling set with overlapping single-purpose tools, there is no guidance on when to prefer this bundle over the narrower tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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