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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it requires the user's own Etherscan key ('BYOK Etherscan (your key, your quota)'), specifies a cost per call ('$0.01/call, x402'), and clarifies the output is a heuristic signal ('Not a guarantee of eligibility'). These are important operational details not present in 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 is a single, compact sentence (~30 words) that front-loads the core action and result, then efficiently adds critical caveats (heuristic, cost, key usage). No wasted words; every clause 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 output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value ('0-100 airdrop-farming readiness score') and covers key operational constraints (cost, BYOK, heuristic). The schema handles parameter details, so the description is complete for a read-only tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds general context about score criteria (age, tx activity, etc.) but does not introduce new meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Profile a wallet on-chain' and clearly states the output: 'a 0-100 airdrop-farming readiness score'. It lists the exact wallet attributes used (age, tx activity, contract & token diversity), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rug-pull-scorer or whale-wallet-tracker.

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 when to use the tool: to profile a wallet for airdrop-farming readiness. It provides context by noting the heuristic nature and BYOK requirement, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance is given, but the purpose is clear enough.

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