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

The annotations mark destructiveHint true, and the description fully discloses the side effect: 'Debits ~0.99 USDT from 2401.' It goes further with latency ('Space ~1s'), the explicit non-effects (no gating, banning, or unblocking), and the constraint 'Never pass client_id' — all beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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 packs purpose, usage timing, endpoint, body, cost, side effects, latency, and exclusions into roughly 60 words, with the main action front-loaded. The only blemish is the likely typo 'Space ~1s' instead of something like 'Takes ~1s,' but the overall structure is efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the action, required parameters with an enum, cost side effect, timing, and non-behaviors. It falls short on the undocumented third 'refresh' parameter and does not describe report contents or error handling, but those gaps are unlikely to prevent correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds the network enum values ('tron_usdt | eth | btc'), names the two required fields (network, address), and warns against client_id. However, a third 'refresh' parameter appears in the schema but is completely absent from the description, so it's good but not fully complete.

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 and resource: 'Screen a crypto address for dirt (sanctions / mixer exposure).' It also disambiguates by explicitly listing what it does not do ('does not gate deposit, does not ban or unblock') and by noting that TON is not in the catalog, so an agent can distinguish this screening tool from enforcement or lookup siblings.

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 provides explicit trigger contexts: 'Use BEFORE you accept a TRC-20 send, or AFTER a wallet is blocked and the reason is unclear.' It also clarifies non-use boundaries like 'does not gate deposit, does not ban or unblock,' telling the agent when not to rely on it for enforcement.

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