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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return payload shape (enriched profile, scores, wallet addresses) and an unusual runtime condition — a possible x402 charge when the profile owner monetizes lookups.

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 compact sentences with the resource and return contents front-loaded, then the recipient variants, then the payment caveat. No filler, though the recipient-type sentence partially duplicates the schema description.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does the work of naming the returned data (platforms, profile, scores, wallet addresses), and it flags the payment condition. It is adequate for an idempotent read tool; the missing piece is how the payment requirement surfaces or how to satisfy 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested recipient object is already documented with its enum of types, including wallets and usernames. The description mirrors that ('social account, an exposed wallet (EVM/Solana/smart wallet), or a Connect username') without adding id format, required-vs-optional rules for id/username, or examples, so it clears the baseline but no more.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List platforms a recipient has exposed on Connect') and enumerates what's returned (profile, scores, wallet addresses), which separates it from a plain lookup. It never names the sibling connect_lookup, so the boundary between this and the non-exposed lookup is left to inference.

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 explains what kinds of recipients are accepted (social account, exposed wallet, Connect username) and warns that x402 payment may be required, which is genuinely useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over connect_lookup or connect_scores_by_account, nor what to do if payment is required.

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