isHolderOfContract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the check function but does not disclose return format (likely boolean), side effects (none), or any constraints. For a read-like tool, this is minimal.

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 of 13 words, no fluff. Efficiently conveys purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by adding nuance about return type or usage context.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable for a simple boolean check. It does not specify the return format, which might be expected for a check function. For a tool with 3 parameters, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the role of wallet ('to check for contract ownership') and contractAddress. However, the parameter descriptions are already clear, so the description adds only marginal semantic depth.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'ownership of NFTs from a specific contract'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getNFTsForOwner (returns list) and getOwnersForContract (returns owners list) as a boolean ownership verification.

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?

Description implies usage via its verb and resource, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getNFTsForOwner or the other NFT tools. No exclusions or scenario guidance provided.

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