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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states limitations (not a credit bureau, fraud guarantee, or legal endorsement) and data sources (DeBank indexing, Aave/Compound contract states). This gives the agent realistic expectations without contradicting the annotation. It could go further by mentioning error handling or edge cases, but the provided context is solid.

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 well-structured: a tight opening sentence, then purpose-built sections (Use when, Limitations, Alternatives) that are each one line. No filler, everything earns its place, and the most critical usage guidance is front-loaded.

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?

Given the readOnlyHint annotation, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential non-obvious aspects: when to use, limitations, and alternatives. It doesn't explain how to interpret the verdict branches, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall it's complete for an agent to decide and call 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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The wallet_address description is minimal ('EVM wallet address (0x-prefixed)') but sufficient; chain_ids has a richer description explaining scoping. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('decision-ready counterparty-risk verdict for an EVM address'), then enumerates the four possible outcome branches (high_risk, caution, acceptable, insufficient_data). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the alternatives at the end, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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 'Use when' section gives concrete trigger conditions (before sending funds, granting approvals, or interacting with an unknown EVM address) and explicitly limits to cases needing a bounded risk decision. The 'Alternatives' section names three sibling tools, providing clear routing to other specific tools when the general verdict is not needed.

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