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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only public chain data; no wallet action or custody') and lists the evidence types returned, which sets expectations. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a single-address inspection tool, this is fairly transparent.

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: main purpose, usage guidance, and safety disclosure. The description is front-loaded with the operation and scoped output, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive summary of what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and its safety profile. It is slightly lacking in explicit output format details or potential failure modes, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the parameter description already explains the address and directs to use wallet_enrich vs enrich. The tool description adds that it 'Inspect[s] a public Base or EVM address' and returns a profile, but it does not introduce new parameter-level semantics; the schema already carries the burden.

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 a specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear resource ('public Base or EVM address') and enumerates the output components (EOA/contract type, token holdings, NFT metadata, proxy evidence, activity, derived profile label). It also distinguishes from sibling `enrich` by identifier type, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use `enrich` for a company domain; the two tools accept different identifiers and return different evidence.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and directly contrasts with the closest alternative. The read-only note further implies a safe analysis use case.

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