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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the price ($0.01 USDC per call), the payment rail (x402 on Base), a latency warning ('hours in response'), and the data window for counterparties (last 300k blocks). It does not clarify whether the multi-hour latency is a blocking call or an async/poll pattern, nor any failure or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence opens with the core value proposition and then enumerates payload contents, latency, and price; every clause carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by itemizing exactly what is returned, including the risk verdict fields (OFAC, freeze lists, labels), and adds cost and latency. The remaining gap is the multi-hour response behavior - an agent cannot tell whether the call blocks for hours or returns a job handle - plus no routing guidance against the sanctions_* siblings.

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% for the single 'address' parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The phrase 'any EVM address' adds a small amount of scope information (any EVM chain accepted, though data is fetched for Base and Ethereum), which is a marginal contribution beyond the schema and consistent with the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Wallet profile in one call for any EVM address') and enumerates the payload precisely: Base/Ethereum balances with USD value, account type and nonce, top USDC counterparties with flow and flags, and the /risk verdict. It never distinguishes this profile from the overlapping siblings sanctions_risk, sanctions_deep, sanctions_address, or sanctions_screen, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the one-shot aggregate for a full wallet picture versus the individual sanctions tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no statement of how it relates to sanctions_deep or sanctions_risk when an agent only needs a screening verdict.

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