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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond these: the 14-day/20-payment threshold before a haircut is issued, the null-with-'not_rated' status, the $0.01 USDC cost via x402 on Base, and the caveat that concentration is not proof of common control. This thoroughly explains edge-case behavior and costs.

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 information-dense yet well-structured. The first sentence lists the key outputs, the second gives the use case, the third explains the coverage threshold and null behavior, the fourth adds an interpretive caveat, and the fifth states the cost. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 carries the full burden of explaining return values and behavioral nuance. It names all essential output concepts, the condition for rated vs. not_rated, the cost, and the correct interpretation of concentration. This is more than sufficient for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what to expect from it.

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%: the single wallet parameter is fully described with a pattern and example. The description calls it a 'receiving wallet,' which duplicates the schema's 'receiving EVM wallet address.' No additional parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Payer-concentration and wash-risk assessment for a receiving wallet.' It clearly lists the outputs (concentration, coverage, haircut, listings, USDC inflow) and explicitly frames its purpose as judging whether revenue reflects real independent demand, distinguishing it from sibling tools like revenue_estimate or credit_score.

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 description provides a clear use case: 'Use this to judge whether a seller's apparent revenue reflects real independent demand.' It tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context but not exhaustive exclusions.

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