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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds value by detailing the return structure (score 0-100, tier, components) and noting it is 'free'. This provides behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, though it does not mention every edge case (e.g., invalid addresses).

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the acronym and purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the input, with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers input, output, use case, and cost/safety, making it fully self-contained. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the return values are explicitly described.

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% for the single 'address' parameter, and the description merely restates 'Input: an Ethereum address' without adding new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 ('score') and identifies the resource ('AI agent or wallet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like market_rates or settlement_estimate. It explicitly states the tool's function: assessing trustworthiness before transactions.

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 phrase 'before paying or transacting with it' provides clear usage context, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, missing the full 5-point criteria for explicit alternatives.

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