contract.auditTeaser

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: results are deliberately obscured to upsell, so the agent knows not to expect complete vulnerability details. It doesn't note any rate limits or auth requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and what it returns. Minor redundancy between 'Free teaser' and the trailing 'Free to use', which costs it the top score.

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, return-format detail isn't required, and the description covers purpose, cost, and the deliberate obscuring of results. It's nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only the explicit relationship to contract.audit is left implicit.

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% and there is a single documented parameter (contractAddress on Base network), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource (smart contract auditor) and a precise scope: a free teaser returning vulnerability counts. It implicitly contrasts with the paid sibling contract.audit, so an agent can differentiate without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the context clearly (free, teaser, upsell-oriented) and references the paid audit as the fuller alternative, but never gives an explicit when-to-use rule like 'use this only for a quick triage before calling contract.audit'.

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