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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read operation ('reads') and lists the returned fields, but it does not address auth requirements, data source/freshness, potential costs, or failure behavior. Adequate for a simple lookup, but not rich.

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?

Two sentences carry the core data facts, the usage trigger, and the input requirement without wasting words or repeating schema fields. The description remains efficient and front-loaded with substantive content.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, input semantics, and use context. It does not explain edge cases like unsupported chains or renewal boundaries, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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?

The schema has one parameter with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by explicitly directing the caller to send an EVM address and by connecting that address to the wallet being checked. It could add chain/format details, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient.

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 identifies the resource (a wallet's standing clearance) and enumerates the specific data returned: paid period, sanctions statement, renewal count, and next renewal. It lacks an explicit command verb like 'get' or 'query', and does not differentiate from similar siblings such as cleared_buyer or standing_bulk, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a clear usage trigger: a seller should read this before taking a job, and it frames the tool as an alternative to paying for a screen. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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