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

The description explains that the tool queries Xaman, caches the status, and unlocks escrows up to $10,000, which goes beyond the annotations' read-only and idempotent hints. It clearly states side effects (unlocking escrows) and idempotency (returns cached result). This is transparent, though a bit more on error conditions could be added.

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?

The description is structured in three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and return fields. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence contributes value, though the mention of 'registers' and 'unlocks escrows' could be seen as slightly tangential. Overall, it's tight and well-organized.

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 single-parameter tool, the description provides complete context: what it does, when to use it, side effects, idempotency, and the return fields. It also gives external context (Xaman, escrow limits) that an agent needs to use it correctly. No critical missing information.

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 input schema has only one parameter (wallet_address) and the description barely adds beyond the schema's 'r...' hint. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not clarify any parameter-specific nuances, so no additional credit.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check and register' with a clear resource (Xaman KYC status) and context (wallet operator). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like check_wallet_sanctions by focusing on identity verification status. The description is highly specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance on when to call ('Call this after completing KYC in the Xaman app') and notes safety of repeated calls. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_wallet_verification_challenge, though the context is sufficient for most agents to select correctly.

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