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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: that blacklist/freeze rows rank by balance-at-restriction while seizure rows rank by balance-taken, and that scope changes which identifying fields appear. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination context is given.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then examples, filters, and the ranking/scope caveats. Five sentences with no filler; slightly long, but each clause carries distinct 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?

For a read-only, 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains row content (wallet, date, block, transaction for the recent scope; none for all_time). It does not enumerate the full returned field set (amount, coin, chain, kind), a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top of the schema by clarifying how the ranking quantity differs between blacklist/freeze and seizure, and by restating the scope-dependent output fields, but filter parameters themselves add little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (stablecoin blacklistings, freezes, seizures, releases) and a specific operation/ordering (ranked by amount, largest first), plus concrete questions it answers. It does not name the overlapping sibling (list_freeze_events) that an agent might otherwise choose, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear context for use via example questions ("what is the largest blacklist") and explains the available filters (coin, blockchain, kind) and the scope choice. It never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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