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

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing async behavior (returns job_id, poll endpoint), ETA, cost, and deliverable format. This adds valuable operational context, though it does not detail the investigation steps or potential side effects.

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 and front-loaded, conveying purpose, deliverable, async flow, and cost in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place with essential information and 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?

It provides the key operational context (async, polling, cost, deliverable) but given the tool's complexity and no output schema, it could explain more about the report contents or error handling. The current level is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single address parameter, which already explains the EVM or Solana formats. The description aligns with this but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Agent-driven wallet due diligence' and describes a 'multi-step investigation' producing a 'signed markdown report + JSON sidecar'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like screen_wallet or intel_wallet by highlighting its async, report-generating nature and dual-chain support.

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 usage is implied as a due-diligence tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like intel_wallet or screen_wallet, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. It provides context but lacks clear exclusions.

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