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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds value by explaining the return format (record of actions with issuer, chain, date, tx, block) and explicitly disclaiming that it never returns a risk score or opinion. It also notes the 'no account needed' requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the return content, coverage, and exclusions. It is slightly longer than the minimum needed, but every sentence contributes—no filler. The length is justified given the need to clarify that this is a factual record, not a risk score.

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 a single parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It clearly states the return structure (every recorded action with issuer, chain, date, transaction, block) and explicitly denies producing risk scores, ratings, or opinions. This is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly without further context.

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 the address parameter's description thoroughly explains accepted formats, case sensitivity, and examples. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning about the parameter itself; it only clarifies the output. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Check one wallet address against the record of stablecoin blacklistings, freezes and seizures.' It clearly distinguishes its output (a dated record of issuer actions) from a risk score, which separates it from potential sibling tools that might offer summaries or ratings. The scope is explicit about coverage of coins and blockchains.

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 states 'Needs no account' (a prerequisite) and implies it is for a single address, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with siblings like list_freeze_events or get_token_statistics. An agent can infer usage from 'one wallet address,' but there is no direct 'use this when…' or 'for aggregate data use X instead' guidance.

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