Who made this contract

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds real caveats: an unread proxy is reported as 'not read' rather than 'not a proxy', selector signature candidates are 'a guess, never a name', and 'Not a safety verdict.' These are genuine interpretation guardrails beyond structured data.

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 main clause is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on of parentheticals (counts, names withheld; template, bytecode match or its own) that is hard to parse in one pass. Every clause carries information, but the structure hurts scanability.

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, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully characterizes them and flags that no parameter is required (address or slug). For a 3-param open-world read tool it is largely complete, with only sibling-routing guidance 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 coverage is 67% (address has only a pattern, no prose). The description compensates by clarifying the address-vs-slug duality and that a slug returns all of a project's contracts, plus the chainId default of 4663, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 title/description clearly frames the tool as answering 'who made this contract' and enumerates the provenance payload: deployer, verified source, proxy history, call counts. A specific verb+resource is evident, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states an address OR a slug can be supplied ('slug for all of a project's'), which implies how to invoke it, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs siblings like get_v4_hook, get_changes, or find_projects, and states no exclusions.

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