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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the tool's purpose, required authentication (email with pass), and rate limits. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, though the nature of scoring implies no destructive actions.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and efficiently covers purpose, output, requirements, and alternatives without any wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (scoring with multiple output dimensions), the description covers all necessary context: input requirements, output details, authentication, rate limits, and a fallback alternative. No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains the return value.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by contextualizing the email as 'Zambo Pass email' and noting that wallet can accept ENS names. It also provides alternative usage guidance if the user lacks a pass.

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 clearly states the tool scores Base wallet addresses from 0-1000 and returns a detailed intelligence profile including label and breakdown. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `bounty_scan` by noting it requires a Zambo Pass.

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 explicitly states when to use (score a wallet) and when not (if user lacks a pass, use `bounty_scan`). It also specifies the requirement of an active Zambo Pass and provides a link to get one, as well as a rate limit of 500 calls per day.

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