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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful contract 'one entry per input wallet, order preserved', but says nothing about partial failures or how unknown/invalid addresses are handled in a 100-item batch, and 'black-box' remains unexplained.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the capability and the batch/ordering contract front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description correctly focuses on batch limits and ordering. It falls short only on error/partial-result semantics for a batch mutation-free but aggregated lookup.

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% with a single, fully documented parameter (pattern, minItems, maxItems). The description only restates the 1–100 cap already encoded in the schema, adding no extra meaning about address format or duplicates.

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?

States a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('black-box public reputation (tiers, gates, track record)') plus batch scope ('up to 100 wallets in one call'). The 'batch ... up to 100' framing implicitly separates it from the single-wallet sibling kellian_get_counterparty_reputation, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 batch framing implies you should use it when checking many wallets at once, but the description never states when-not to use it or points at kellian_get_counterparty_reputation for single lookups. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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