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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, result volume, or pagination behavior beyond a boilerplate '200: Successful Response' line. For a search tool returning potentially large document sets, the absence of any behavioral context is a real gap.

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 core intent is front-loaded in two efficient sentences, but the trailing HTTP response boilerplate ('200: Successful Response ... Content-Type: application/json') adds no decision-relevant information and should be trimmed.

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?

A six-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more from the description: nothing is said about what a 'document' is, how results are ordered or paged, how date filters interact with the wallet filter, or what happens with unknown chains. An agent can form the call but cannot predict the result or safely tune the paging parameters.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents gte, lte, page, page_size, chain and address. The description only restates the two required parameters ('Specify chain (BTC, ETH) and address'), adding no new meaning and failing to mention that date-range filtering and pagination are available. It also lists only BTC/ETH while the schema allows SOL, slightly narrowing the perceived input space.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Vysion for documents linked to a cryptocurrency wallet') and names the two required inputs, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling lookup tools (get_documents_by_email, search_leaks_by_wallet, search_documents), leaving differentiation to the tool name alone.

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?

'Use for crypto investigation and tracing' gives a domain hint but no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use criteria, and no prerequisites such as required plan, auth, or data availability. It never mentions the closely related wallet-oriented siblings (search_leaks_by_wallet, search_wallet_in_im_database) that an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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