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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it names threat feed sources (GoPlus, SlowMist/BlockSec), lists flag categories, and explicitly discloses that 'No flags = no KNOWN bad history (not a guarantee of safety)'. This caveat prevents misinterpretation of results.

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 dense but purposeful sentences front-load the core purpose. The complex second sentence delivers necessary nuance about use cases and limitations without wasted words, though it is slightly heavy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, data sources, flag categories, and the interpretation of a 'no flags' result. It could describe the return format but is otherwise complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the address parameter by noting it works on any address even without a contract, but it does not elaborate on the chain parameter beyond what the schema states.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a wallet/address reputation check from GoPlus threat feeds and enumerates specific threat categories (phishing, drainer, money laundering, mixer use, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it works on ANY address even without a contract and positions it as a pre-launch/pre-mint check.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: it is the key pre-launch/pre-mint check for a project's creator/deployer wallet and also vets any wallet a user will interact with. This gives context for selection, though it does not name alternative tools for contrast.

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