request_smart_contract_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive' audit, price, and estimated delivery time, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a paid service requiring authorization, if it's a one-time or recurring request, rate limits, or what happens after submission (e.g., asynchronous processing). For a tool with financial implications, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Price) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The price note is slightly extraneous but relevant. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return intent but lacks behavioral details like error handling or authentication needs. The output schema likely handles return values, so description focus on process is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters and adds meaning: 'contract_address: Contract to audit', 'chain: Blockchain network', and 'scope: Audit scope. Options: quick, standard, full'. This clarifies semantics beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., chain values beyond default 'ethereum') or dependencies, leaving gaps.

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: 'Request comprehensive smart contract security audit.' It specifies the verb ('request') and resource ('smart contract security audit'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_smart_contract' or 'run_compliance_check', which might have overlapping security functions.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a contract address), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'scan_smart_contract' for lighter analysis. The price mention hints at cost considerations but isn't explicit usage guidance.

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