isSpamContract

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the verb 'check', offering no details about the output format, required permissions, or side effects. The agent must guess whether the result is a boolean, object, or other.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, easily understood at a glance.

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 simple tool lacking an output schema, the description should specify the return format. The agent cannot determine if the result is a boolean, a spam score, or a list of flags. Additionally, there is no mention of any constraints or assumptions, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain how the network default works or what valid addresses look like, but the schema already covers this adequately.

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 'Check if a specific contract address is flagged as spam' clearly states the action (check) and resource (contract address for spam status). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'getSpamContracts' which returns a list, making the singular check intent obvious.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getSpamContracts' or 'reportSpam'. No contextual usage hints are given, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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