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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the cost ($0.005 USDC) and the deterministic allow/review/block output resolution with per-signal detail, which tells the agent what it gets back and what it pays.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the price trailing as a compact qualifier. Every clause (scope, signals, output form, cost) earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, data sources, output semantics and cost, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around multi-chain handling and failure behavior for malformed or unknown addresses.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already specifies the accepted formats (EVM 0x 40-hex or Solana base58 pubkey). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 plus the exact analyses performed (OFAC SDN sanctions, address reputation: drainer/phishing/mixer/laundering) and the resulting artifact (allow/review/block with per-signal detail). It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely overlapping siblings like intel_wallet or investigate_wallet, leaving the agent to guess which wallet-screening tool to pick.

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?

"Wallet risk pre-flight for agent payments" implies the usage context (check before transacting), which is real but implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement and no routing to the sibling tools (intel_wallet, investigate_wallet, oracle_verdict) that also operate on wallets.

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