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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns a dated, verifiable record, covers multiple blockchains and coins, and explicitly says it never returns a risk score, rating, or opinion. It also discloses that no authentication is required.

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 then adds useful granularity about output fields, coverage, and limitations. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, with some repetition between 'Returns every recorded action' and 'Returns a dated record,' but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, read-only, no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what input is expected, what the output contains, what blockchains and coins are covered, and what the result is not (a risk score). No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 the parameter description already explains address formats, case sensitivity, length, and examples. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'one wallet address,' so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('one wallet address against the record of stablecoin blacklistings, freezes and seizures') and explicitly describes what is returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a single address lookup rather than broad statistics or event listings.

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 usage context is clear: this is the tool to use when you need the recorded actions against one specific wallet address. It also states that no account is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling tool such as list_freeze_events for broader event-level queries.

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