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

The description discloses a key trait annotations do not: the call costs $0.008 USDC. It also emphasizes the batched 'one call' nature. However, with readOnlyHint=false and no further annotation, it does not disclose whether state changes occur, what happens after payment, or the quote-before-payment flow, which is left to the schema.

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?

Two short sentences carry only high-signal information: cost and scope. There is no fluff, redundancy, or buried detail; the most important facts are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, a non-read-only annotation, and no explanation of what the scan returns or which 10 chains are included, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool. The payment flow is partially documented in the schema, but the overall operation still lacks necessary context.

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 address parameter has no schema description, so 'single address' adds minimal semantic value beyond the pattern. The optional payment_signature parameter is well-described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate. This is neutral: schema covers half the parameters, and the description adds little for the other half.

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 states a concrete operation: a single address is scanned across 10 EVM chains, which defines the resource and separates it from siblings like wallet_brief or token_brief. However, it never says what 'scan' returns (balances, transactions, risk), so the outcome is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to pick this tool over sibling tools or what conditions call for it. The only usage cue is the payment requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection criterion.

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