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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful constraints ('from public records only', 'addresses only, no ranking'), but does not explain pagination, response shape, or other behavioral details beyond the field names.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the field enumeration substitutes for a missing output schema, but the single dense sentence with many internal field names is hard to parse. It is not wasteful, but it is not concise or clearly structured.

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 no output schema, the description needs to explain return values, and it lists the main fields. However, several domain terms are left undefined, and 'plus counts' is not specified, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the vocabulary.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the filter enum. The description reinforces their usage ('address=' for one address, 'filter=carried' for the carried set), but adds limited meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific per-address resource and states the fields returned, plus the 'addresses only, no ranking' scope. It is fairly distinguishable from broad list/standing tools, though the domain jargon ('genesis cut', 'engine fold') makes the purpose less immediately clear.

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?

It explicitly says to use address= to check one address or filter=carried for the carried set. This gives clear invocation guidance, but it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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