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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ('Free'), that chain/address type is auto-detected from format, and the exact normalized return envelope. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cleanly segmented into Params and Returns sections; every clause carries information. It is dense and slightly telegraphic, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Covers the essentials an agent needs to call correctly: inputs, auto-detection behavior, cost, and the returned fields in lieu of an output schema. Missing only secondary details such as failure modes or rate limits.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the two address formats are auto-detected and that 'chain' is only a hint for EVM history rather than a required selector. That clarifies parameter interaction rather than merely restating names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('address lookup') and scopes it to two concrete address families (EVM 0x, XRPL r-addresses) with auto-detection. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like check_entity or resolve_name without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('fast first-pass check on a counterparty wallet') and marks it as free, which helps an agent choose it for cheap preliminary screening. It does not, however, name the sibling tools it should be preferred over or excluded in favor of, leaving that inference to the agent.

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