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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a scan operation, lists specific risk detectors (unlimited ERC-20 approvals, unverified spenders, Soana delegate authorities), and says it returns a risk assessment. This is transparent about the read-only, non-destructive nature and the output at a high level.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, the chain details are organized clearly, and every sentence contributes to a practical understanding of when and how to invoke the tool.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: input address format, supported chains, what will be detected, and the return type. The only notable gap is that the 'risk assessment' output structure is not described, which would help an agent interpret the result, but it is not blocking for correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds useful chain-specific meaning: EVM address format versus Soana base58, and what the chain parameter controls. It adds value beyond the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 starts with a clear verb-object statement, 'Scan a wallet for risky token approvals,' and then specifies exactly what it detects on EVM versus Solana. It differentiaes itself from Solana-only siblings by covering both chain families and zeroes in on a distinct risk category.

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 the intended use case: scanning a wallet for token approval risks, with clear chain-specific guidance. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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