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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: Ed25519 signature, offline verification, included freshness metadata, and the important interpretive caveat that it is 'a witness, not a prosecutor: no conclusions about people.' It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and behavior for unknown/unindexed addresses.

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 the core deliverable and a tight enumeration of contents; the shorthand URL and the 'witness, not a prosecutor' line both earn their place. Dense but not padded.

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 burden of describing returns, and it does so field-by-field plus a verification guarantee. Remaining gaps are minor: response encoding, error/not-found behavior, and whether results are cached or time-bounded.

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 50%: network is documented in the schema as an EVM chain name defaulting to ethereum, while address is an unannotated string. The description does not clarify the accepted address format (hex EVM address vs. other identifiers) or how address and network interact, so it adds 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?

The description names a concrete resource ('everything OceanAlt holds about an address') and enumerates the payload (screening verdict, freshness, profile signals, one-hop relations, receipt stats, coverage), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly differentiates from the narrower sibling screen_address by breadth, though it never names that sibling directly.

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: you call it when you want the full verifiable dossier for one address rather than a single verdict. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of when the cheaper screen_address call suffices, and no guidance on the free-tier limits despite 'free' appearing in the title.

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