check_contract_ownership

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates the high-level output categories (renounced, multisig, EOA) but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the exact return format is, how errors are handled, or what 'renounced' means in practice. This falls short of the transparency expected without annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one required param, one optional with default, no output schema), the description conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks detail about the result's structure or exact return values, and does not clarify edge cases (e.g., non-contract addresses). This is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent trying to interpret the response.

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%: both 'contractAddress' and 'network' have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: verifying contract ownership status by classifying it as renounced, multisig, or EOA. It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('contract ownership'), and the scope is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'is_contract' or 'analyze_contract_permissions', so it misses the extra distinction that would earn 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?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to determine if a contract is renounced, multisig, or EOA. However, it provides no explicit 'when not' guidance, alternatives, or contextual prerequisites. The implied usage is clear but not elaborated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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