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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful traits: addresses sharing a funding source are treated as non-independent, exchange-dead-end addresses are listed separately rather than merged, and the call can 'fail to' establish common control, producing an explicit unresolved set. This goes well beyond the schema and helps set expectations.

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 moderately sized but well organized: a one-line core function, a returns/caveats paragraph, and a purpose-driven example. It front-loads the main operation and uses the final sentence to clarify value without being redundant. It is not overly terse, and each sentence adds information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly enumerates what is returned: clusters, the funder behind each, a same-actor verdict, and an unresolved set. It also covers an important edge case (exchange dead-ends). For a tool with five parameters and moderate complexity, this is a solidly complete picture, though it does not describe exact return shapes or error conditions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some conceptual context for the addresses parameter (wallets to test for common control, sharing a funding source is meaningful) but provides no additional semantic detail for line, token, from_block, or to_block beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a clear action: given wallets, trace funding and collapse them into clusters of common control. It names the returned artifacts and the transformation goal. While it does not explicitly call out sibling tools like audit_funders or audit_payers, 'clusters of common control' is a distinctive deliverable that separates it from those.

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 implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this is for turning many addresses into a smaller set of controlled clusters, and the closing line explains its purpose ('turns 55 distinct payers into one actor'). It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives among the listed siblings, so it stops at implied usage.

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