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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds valuable context: it combines 12 independent signals (e.g., account age, XRP balance, sanctions screening, KYC checks) and returns a full score breakdown for reasoning. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the score, the second lists the signals, the third specifies use cases, and the fourth provides actionable thresholds. No fluff.

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?

Despite the tool involving 12 complex signals (including sanctions screening, KYC, etc.), the description covers the purpose, key use cases, score interpretation, and return format (full breakdown). Since an output schema exists, the agent can infer the exact return structure. The description is complete for this level of complexity.

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) with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is complete and clear. With a single, well-documented parameter, the tool is self-explanatory.

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 clearly states it retrieves the AgentTrust Wallet Trust Score (0–100) for any XRPL wallet, which is a specific verb-resource combo. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_wallet_kyc, check_wallet_sanctions, rate_wallet, and get_wallet_verification_challenge, which cover narrower identity or risk checks. The scope (any XRPL wallet) is 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 explicitly advises using the tool before 'accepting a job or creating an escrow to assess counterparty risk.' It provides score thresholds (below 30 low-trust, 30–60 moderate, 60+ established) and a concrete use case for KYC-verified wallets (escrow limits). This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like check_wallet_sanctions or rate_wallet.

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