midl_verify_contract

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it interacts with Blockscout explorer, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the verification is permanent, if it modifies state on-chain, or any failure modes). The added value over annotations is limited.

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 that conveys the main purpose and key requirements without any filler. It is front-loaded with the action and platform, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the function returns (e.g., verification success/failure, transaction hash). Given the simplicity of a verification tool, more detail on the outcome would be helpful. Additionally, no guidance is provided on how to obtain the compiler version or other settings.

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 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description mentions the three required parameters (address, sourceCode, contractName) and 'compiler settings' which groups the remaining parameters, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score due to high coverage.

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 action 'verify contract source code' and the target 'Blockscout explorer'. This verb+resource construction is specific and distinct from sibling tools like deploy or write_contract.

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 lists required inputs (contract address, source code, compiler settings) which provides some usage context. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like midl_deploy_contract or midl_write_contract, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the inputs.

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