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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool is static, deterministic, and confined to 11 fixed patterns, which calibrates an agent's expectations of coverage. It does not disclose the output format, false-positive tendencies, or what the trailing 'Case: minia2a.uk/...' URL is meant to convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the 11-pattern list is compact and informative. The 'Case: minia2a.uk/blog/blog-ai-contract-audit-august-2026.html' clause is unhelpful noise that costs a point.

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 security audit tool with five optional but unexplained input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to use, what encoding source_gz/source_b64 expect, or what the returned report contains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The five parameter descriptions are tautological placeholders ('Code to process', 'Source to process') that add no meaning, and the description only hints that the input is Solidity. It does nothing to clarify how code/source/contract/source_gz/source_b64 relate or which one an agent should populate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'smart contract security audit, solidity vulnerability scan,' and enumerating the 11 static patterns makes the tool's scope concrete and recognizable. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with audit-adjacent siblings such as x402-ai-audit or x402-contract-scan.

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?

'Fast pre-check, deterministic' implies this tool is for quick, reproducible screening rather than deep audit work, which gives some selection context. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, despite many overlapping audit tools in the sibling catalog.

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