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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (risk score 0-100) and accepted input categories, which is useful. But it omits behavioral details such as how multiple parameters are handled (e.g., precedence), whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits or prerequisites. This is not misleading but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output. Every word adds value, and no redundant details are present.

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?

Given the 6 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. The output schema exists, so return details are covered, but critical input selection semantics are missing. The agent doesn't know if it should provide one identifier or many, which parameters are exclusive, or what the 'chain' parameter controls. This gap hinders correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description is the only guide. It maps input types to parameters (EVM wallets, Stellar wallets, domains, IPs, company names) but does not explicitly name all parameter fields or explain the 'chain' parameter. It also doesn't state whether exactly one identifier is required or how combinations behave, leaving ambiguity.

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: 'Score a counterparty before sending money' with a specific verb 'score' and resource 'counterparty'. It also specifies the output ('risk score 0-100'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_issuer and export_audit_bundle, which have distinct operations.

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 sending money' provides a clear use context. It also lists accepted input types, giving guidance on what to pass. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, missing some exclusionary guidance.

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