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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: it is a paid call with a price range ($0.25–$1.00) deducted from Einstein credit balance, and that free alternatives exist. This cost-related context is beyond what annotations provide, though it does not detail response format or error behavior.

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: the first front-loads the primary purpose and lists the analysis categories, the second handles cost and alternatives. No filler or redundancy—every word contributes to tool understanding.

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 multi-kind, multi-chain analyzer with no output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, all kind semantics, cost, and pointers to alternatives. It lacks explicit mention of return format or chain-specific limitations, but given the schema richness and annotations, the remaining gaps are minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description enriches the 'kind' parameter by mapping enum values to plain-language meanings (e.g., 'realized/unrealized P&L' for pnl, 'forgotten or dust assets' for forgotten), helping an agent select the correct analysis type. It does not add much for chain or walletAddress, but schema already describes those adequately.

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 'Analyze any wallet address' and enumerates specific analysis types (holdings, P&L, trust score, forgotten assets, airdrops, quantum resistance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_bitcoin or analyze_token_security, which target narrower subjects.

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 provides usage context by noting the cost and pointing to list_einstein_capabilities for free alternatives, which helps an agent decide whether to use this tool or seek cheaper options. However, it does not explicitly name specific sibling tools for when-not-to-use or provide exclusions for particular chain/kind combinations.

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