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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: cost ($0.05), authentication requirement (API key), supported chains, and the type of intelligence returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and information-dense. It front-loads the primary action ('Forensic address intelligence report'), then lists outputs, usage scenario, supported chains, cost, and auth requirement in a few efficient sentences with zero filler.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it returns, when to use it, supported chains, cost, and required API key. It does not describe error handling or output format, but the listed return fields provide adequate context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'address' and 'chain' having descriptive text. The description restates the chain options but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters well.

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's purpose: 'Forensic address intelligence report via Blockscout multi-chain.' It specifies the resource (EVM address) and the action (investigate), and enumerates the outputs (balance, age, entity label, transaction summary, token holdings, risk flags), distinguishing it from generic data retrieval tools.

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 concrete use case: 'Run before sending USDC to any unknown address.' This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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