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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds important context beyond those annotations: pricing, first 25 free, failed calls free, repeats not free, read/compute-only behavior, and scope limitations around token contracts and address type. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with what the tool does and is generally efficient. It includes useful routing, limitations, example, and pricing details, though it is somewhat dense and has minor repetition around screening and call charging.

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 still explains the return contents sufficiently: risk tier, named flags, balances, nonce, and separate address type. It also covers scope limits, alternatives, and billing behavior. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

There is one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the address format. The description adds an example address and clarifies Base chain screening scope, but it does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: screen a Base address for fresh/throwaway-wallet signals, returning a risk tier, named flags, balances, and nonce. It also distinguishes scope from check_counterparty and clarifies that token contracts are not audited, so an agent can differentiate it from sibling wallet tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for screening a Base address, names check_counterparty for OFAC and other chains, and gives a concrete address example. It also states limitations: address type does not affect tier and token contracts are not audited. This is strong when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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