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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses the cost (Paid $0.008 USDC), states that results are 'automated heuristic signals from public data', and explicitly disclaims KYC/compliance/legal status. This gives agents important caveats about reliability, though it does not comment on side effects or response shape.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the paid amount, then the core purpose, then critical limitations. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description conveys what the tool does and its limitations, but with no output schema it does not describe the result format or how the payment flow works (beyond 'Paid'). It is adequate for an agent to select the tool but somewhat thin for invocation details like expected output or address type.

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 50% (address has no description), so the description should compensate. It does tie the address parameter to its purpose (sanctions screening for one address) and the paid nature implies payment_signature's role. But it adds no format, chain, or usage details beyond what the schema already says for payment_signature, leaving partial gaps.

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 the specific resource (public-data sanctions-list signal), the scope (one address), and the data sources (OFAC SDN digital-currency entries and community blocklists). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wallet_brief or multi_chain_scan, though it uses a noun ('signal') rather than an explicit verb.

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?

Usage is implied: the description indicates this is for a single-address sanctions-list signal, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, so guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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