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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the data sources (Olas Mechs and Virtuals ACP), which the annotations cannot convey. It says nothing about behavior for unknown addresses, data freshness, result limits, or failure modes, which for an open-world lookup tool leaves gaps.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and returned metrics front-loaded, followed by scope and invocation rules. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema beyond the necessary addressing constraint.

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 usefully enumerates the return metrics and both data sources, and gives the addressing rule. Minor gaps remain around edge cases (no matches, unsupported chain, latency), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema does not express: the inputs are mutually exclusive—give an address alone, or id together with chain. Since no parameters are marked required, this disambiguation genuinely reduces misuse.

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?

States a specific resource ('paid work history') and enumerates the returned metrics (job count, unique counterparties, repeat client rate, total earnings), plus the covered networks (Olas Mechs, Virtuals ACP). This clearly separates it from siblings like network_stats, address_age, and trust_check, though it never names a 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?

Implied usage is clear from the resource naming ('paid work history for an agent or address'), and the last sentence tells how to address the lookup. However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. when to prefer trust_check or reviewer_analysis over this aggregate view.

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