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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the detection capabilities (bot, wash trading, sybil) and the training/test input arrangement, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact: two sentences plus an illustrative example. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information. No redundant phrases or unnecessary details.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, workflow (training/test), and data content (field examples). Given there is no output schema, it could have described what the tool returns (e.g., classification labels, scores), but the current description still gives a solid understanding for a read-only profiling 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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters described), but the description adds meaning by listing example fields for the arrays: 'tx_count, avg_value, unique_tokens, gas_spent, active_days, etc.' This clarifies what constitutes a 'wallet activity profile,' adding value beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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's function: 'Profile wallet behavior against baselines' and specifies detectable outcomes ('bot activity, wash trading wallets, and sybil patterns'). This specific verb+resource+outcome combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like waveguard_scan or waveguard_compare, which focus on other aspects.

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?

It explains when to use the tool: feed normal transaction patterns as training and suspect wallets as test. The example ('Profile 50 organic wallets → test 10 suspect addresses') provides a concrete scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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