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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it explains the null-label behavior, instructs the agent to report it as 'not identified', and cautions against guessing an operator. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but it discloses the most important data quirks.

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 the core purpose and organized into three short paragraphs, each adding a distinct piece of guidance. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but the caveats about named contracts and null labels earn their place.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description explains the high-level return content and important edge-case semantics. The main gap is chain parameter semantics and the meaning of the four attribution vectors, but an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented address and chain parameters. It clarifies that the lookup targets one contract or wallet address and mentions per-chain volume, but it never explains the chain parameter's format, allowed values, or what omitting it means.

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 what the tool returns: ClearTrace's attribution data and label for a single contract or wallet address, including per-chain volume splits. It differentiates itself by emphasizing the anonymous-router use case, though it does not explicitly name 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 explicitly says the tool is most useful for anonymous routers and proxies, warns that named protocol contracts may return nothing, and explains that an empty result is not evidence the address is obscure. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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