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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely delivers: it discloses what the scan covers, the return contract (risk score 0-100, risk level, action items, service suggestions), and supported chains. It stops short of edge behaviors such as latency implications of 'deep' scans, failure modes for unsupported address formats, or what 'related service suggestions' actually are.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose in the first, return shape in the second, and chain support in the third. The core action is front-loaded with zero filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavioral scope, the return contract, and chain coverage — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Missing elements are usage routing versus siblings and depth/latency expectations, which are useful refinements rather than blockers.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds little parameter-level value beyond the schema. The closest overlap is 'assesses target contract risk,' which mirrors the targetContract parameter that the schema already documents fully.

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 pairs a specific verb-resource ('wallet safety check') with three concrete analysis components — approvals, transaction activity, and target contract risk — that clearly differentiate it from narrower siblings like approval_scan (approvals only) and solana_token_risk_scan (token risk only). The 'Comprehensive' framing plus the composite output shape establishes it as the umbrella safety tool.

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?

Usage is implied through scope rather than stated: the breadth of the checks signals 'use this when you need the full wallet picture,' but the description never names alternatives, exclusions, or conditions (e.g., 'for approvals-only, use approval_scan instead'). An agent must infer routing against several overlapping siblings.

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