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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses pricing ($0.02/call via x402 USDC or a card key, first 25 free, failed calls free), explains why idempotentHint=false matters (each call is charged, so repeats are not free), states the operation changes nothing, and documents nonce semantics and per-token risk blind spots.

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 what is returned, followed by caveats, usage, example, and pricing in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information (outputs, limitations, cost model) 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return shape (risk tier values, flags, balances, nonce) and its interpretation caveats. Safety is covered by annotations, and cost/rate-limit behavior is explicit, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 address parameter is already documented; the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete example address and by tying the domain to Base, but does not add additional parameter-level constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb+resource (returns a heuristic risk tier, named flags, ETH balance, holdings of 4 named tokens, and the Base EVM nonce) and scopes it to Base. This is distinguishable from siblings like wallet_portfolio (holdings) and contract_risk (contracts, not EOAs), and it explicitly separates the address-type signal from the risk tier.

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?

"Use to screen an address before paying it" gives a concrete triggering scenario, and caveats (per-token risk unknown, nonce counts outgoing txs only) clarify when results should not be over-trusted. It stops short of naming alternatives such as wallet_portfolio or contract_risk, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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