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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that it performs public ledger reads only, requires no wallet signing, and returns a limited free preview. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return format details.

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 compact sentences front-load the free preview and then add the key constraints. There is no filler, though a slightly clearer structure could improve it.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives useful context about scope and result size. Still, it leaves the address input format and output structure unspecified.

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?

The sole 'address' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not describe its expected format or meaning beyond the implied wallet address. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the tool provides a wallet safety preview with a heuristic score and up to three issues, distinguishing the free preview from a paid full report. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 mention of 'full report is paid' implies this tool is for free previews, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the paid alternative or other sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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