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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns evidence only and lists what is included and excluded. It mentions 'free' and 'optional risk_check' but does not detail rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. The behavior is well-disclosed overall.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and contents in the first sentence, and reinforcing the exclusion in the second. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. The mention of 'optional risk_check' is slightly ambiguous but does not detract significantly from completeness.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context about the report contents but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'optional risk_check' may refer to an output component, not a parameter.

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 it returns a 'free sectioned evidence report for one Bitcoin address' and lists the contents (labels, trust-safety, risk signals, etc.). It explicitly excludes scores, verdicts, and compliance recommendations, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 clear context by stating it is evidence-only and listing what it includes and excludes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the exclusions imply use cases for other tools.

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