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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses a false-positive policy ('Unknown links are reported as unknown, never as safe'), that confirmation requires two independent sources, and the substantive answer fields (key custody, freeze policy, leaked-API-key impact, breach history). It does not discuss latency, coverage limits per service, or why openWorldHint is false for what reads like an external-list lookup.

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 intent is front-loaded in the opening clause, which is good, but the remainder is one dense run-on sentence that stacks hardware-wallet brand lists and shop-reseller enumerations inline. Much of that is genuinely informative, yet the wall-of-text structure makes it hard to scan and would benefit from splitting into purpose, coverage, and return-value blocks.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly: verdict types, risk/custody fields, Monero/Zcash support, breach and incident data, deadlines, a 3-step setup, and source attribution. For a one-parameter lookup of this complexity, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 single parameter is required, so the schema already carries the baseline. The description still adds real meaning by enumerating the accepted input forms beyond the schema example: bare name, URL, Telegram or X @handle, GitHub repo, app-store link, and for shops a maker or website.

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?

Despite the generic name 'check', the description states a specific verb plus resource population: it vets trading bots, terminals, exchanges, swap services, wallets and hardware-wallet shops by name/link/handle. It also distinguishes scope from siblings by naming what it returns (official-list confirmation, fake/lookalike verdict, custody score, reseller authorization) rather than overlapping with get_risk or get_tool.

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?

'Check before connecting' gives a clear trigger point for invocation, and the covered entity list implies the boundary of what it can be used on. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_risk or check_setup) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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