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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses per-action credit costs (200k/100k/500k), the pagination contract (pass nextStartingAfter back as startingAfter), the limited chain support for exposure actions, and the caveat that costs are indicative and the real figure is in response headers. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a costly call.

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?

Well front-loaded with the action bullets followed by chain-support notes and a credit table. It loses a point for redundancy: the per-action credit costs appear both inside the action bullets and again in the separate 'Credits by action' section.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation multi-action tool, the description covers return shapes per action, cost, chain eligibility, and pagination mechanics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 schema already documents every parameter including enums, defaults, and the blockchain subset. The description largely restates those constraints rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Each of the four actions is described with a specific verb and resource (verify-address checks flags, screen-transaction screens a tx, get-address-exposure returns graph exposure, list-address-exposure-paths lists routes), and the return payloads are enumerated per action. An agent can tell this AML tool apart from the address_history/address_latest siblings at a glance.

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 action list implies when each action applies, and the description notes the chain-subset restriction for the two exposure actions, but it never states when to choose verify-address vs get-address-exposure (both risk-related) or when to prefer this tool over the sibling address tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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