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

Annotations already declare it a read-only, open-world, non-destructive call. The description adds real value on top: it discloses that the response is a representative sample, that each entry carries a source category and reason, and that access is free with no API key. Sample size and refresh cadence remain unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the no-argument and no-cost notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly and describes the shape of each returned item. It falls short only on factors like sample size, pagination, and how 'recent' is defined.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Saying 'Takes no arguments' confirms the empty schema rather than adding new meaning, which is consistent but not enriching.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource — returning a representative sample of addresses from OceanAlt's reviewed risk list — and enumerates the included categories (OFAC-sanctioned, mixers, scam/phishing). This clearly separates it from the screening and decision tools among its 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?

The description implies the tool is for browsing example risky addresses, but it never states when to choose it over screen_address or the other screening siblings, nor any exclusions. 'Takes no arguments. Free, no API key' gives context but not usage routing.

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