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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that unlabeled addresses return a null label, that empty results can occur for well-known contracts, and that guessing an operator from volume or deployer is unreliable. This goes well beyond restating the tool's purpose and protects the agent from misinterpreting 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear definition, and the following paragraphs provide valuable interpretive guidance rather than filler. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each warning earns its place by preventing incorrect conclusions from empty or null results.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation scope, the effect of the optional chain parameter, and the important semantic states of the result (null label, empty result). An agent has enough context to select the tool and interpret its output 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds minor context about the address being a single contract or wallet, but it does not substantially improve on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 precise, specific definition: it returns what ClearTrace knows about a single contract or wallet address, including per-chain volume split across four attribution vectors and any resolved label. It also explicitly differentiates itself from aggregate views by naming anonymous routers and proxies as 'the differentiated question this answers.'

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Most useful on the ANONYMOUS routers and proxies') and explains a key caveat: known named protocol contracts may return nothing, so an empty result is not evidence of obscurity. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to use instead, but the conditions for use are clearly implied.

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