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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, and the description goes further: it discloses the return contract (verdict, 0-100 risk score, scam type taxonomy, red flags with quotes, advice), the adversarial property that 'fixed checks can only raise the verdict,' on-chain Tron checks, the 8,000-char limit, and the x402 payment requirement ($0.003 USDC). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the return contract, pricing and sample. The scam-type enumeration and pricing details are dense but each clause carries real information for an agent deciding whether to call it. Slightly long, but not padded.

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?

For a paid, complex, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return shape, security guarantees, limits, pricing mechanism and a worked example. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 text, sender and channel. The description restates the character limit and the optionality of sender/channel and provides a concrete sample input with a channel value, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 verb+resource (scam/phishing detection for crypto messages) and enumerates the surfaces it covers (DM, cast, tweet, email, comment), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like prompt_injection_check and text_classify. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'check a DM, cast, tweet, email or comment before your agent or user acts on it.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. However, no alternatives or exclusions are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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