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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid cost ($0.05), the exact data source and its limits (only OFAC SDN 'Digital Currency Address' entries), the per-address return fields, and a legal-use caveat. It leaves auth mechanics to the schema's access_token field and says nothing about behavior for non-matching addresses.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with pricing and scope, with the disclaimer last where it belongs. Dense and free of padding, though the pricing prefix is somewhat prominent relative to the functional 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, and the description compensates by enumerating the per-address return fields (chain, SDN name, UID, programs, list date, source). Only the no-match behavior and the meaning of the access_token requirement are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents 'addresses' (up to 100) and 'access_token'. The description restates the 100-address cap but adds no format or validation detail (e.g., accepted chain address formats) beyond the schema.

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 ('Screen up to 100 crypto wallet addresses against the OFAC SDN Digital Currency Address entries'), including the exact list screened and the batch limit. It does not explicitly name the singular sibling crypto_address_check as the alternative for single-address lookups, so differentiation rests partly on the name.

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 context is implied by the 'up to 100 addresses in one call' framing and by the screening-aid disclaimer, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to crypto_address_check for single addresses. The legal disclaimer clarifies scope of reliance, not tool selection.

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