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

Beyond annotations, it discloses a $0.05 USDC cost, the required X-PAYMENT header, return values (risk level, score, recommendation), and the specific analysis scope. It does not fully elaborate on the destructiveHint annotation's meaning, but the payment side-effect is a critical behavioral disclosure.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then pack in essential operational details (cost, payment header, outputs). There is no redundant phrasing, and every sentence earns its place.

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 explains inputs, outputs, cost, authentication requirement, and analysis dimensions, which is substantial for a tool without an output schema. It lacks interpretation guidance for risk scores, but overall it gives the agent enough context to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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 parameter wallet_address is fully described in the schema with format details (0x + 40 hex chars). The description adds no new parameter-specific information, so the schema carries the burden; 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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Screen a blockchain wallet address for compliance risk.' It then details the unique combination of OFAC check and on-chain exposure analysis across Ethereum and Base, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like kyc_check or aml_screen.

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?

The description implies usage context by explaining what the tool does and noting 'No entity name required,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternative tools or mention any exclusions. Sibling differentiation 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.