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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verdict categories and the evidence examined (direct transfers, shared funders, wallet age, x402 payment history), which is genuinely useful. However it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor any cost, latency, or rate-limit characteristics.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: the core question, the return shape, then usage triggers. Every sentence earns its place 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by naming the verdict values, confidence, and evidence categories. The main residual gap is the absence of any read-only/safety statement given there are no annotations.

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%, so wallet_a/wallet_b and the context enum (including its 'payout_rotation' behavior) are already documented. The description's mention of 'the new wallet's age' reinforces wallet_b's role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states a specific, distinctive question ('Are two Solana wallets controlled by the same owner?') and enumerates the outputs (verdict, confidence, evidence types). This is clearly separable from siblings like compare_wallets and wallet_graph, which do generic metric comparison or graph traversal rather than same-owner/sybil inference.

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 two concrete trigger conditions: 'when a payout wallet changes' and 'to check two wallets for a sybil link.' That is clear when-to-use context, though it names no alternative sibling (e.g. compare_wallets) for when this is the wrong choice.

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