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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses GoPlus sanctions sourcing and an apparent $0.01 USDC Base cost, but never states read-only/no state change, auth needs, rate limits, or response format, and the cost phrasing is ambiguous.

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?

One front-loaded 'USE WHEN' sentence with zero padding. Each clause contributes scope, trigger context, or cost information.

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 a one-parameter check with no output schema or annotations, listing reputation, transaction count, balances, and sanctions flags tells the agent what comes back. It still leaves read-only status and exact response shape implicit.

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 single address parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including '0x EVM wallet or agent contract address on Base.' The description's 'counterparty wallet' adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Names a specific check and enumerates wallet reputation, transaction count, USDC/ETH balances, and sanctions flags, which separates it from token-audit and preflight siblings. It never explicitly contrasts those siblings, so the purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE WHEN' checking a counterparty wallet before transacting, giving a clear trigger context. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative for token-level checks, so exclusions are absent.

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