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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the exact label categories returned and the notable limitation that premium labels are not returned, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence and adds the key exclusion in the second, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the rich nested input schema, presence of an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly defines the tool's scope and key exclusion, though it could briefly mention an alternative for premium labels or define 'standard labels' more precisely.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the tool targets a single wallet address, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the standard labels for one wallet address.' It further specifies the label categories returned (identity, behavioural, protocol) and explicitly excludes premium labels, which distinguishes it from other address-related tools.

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 description conveys when to use the tool—when standard labels for a wallet are needed—and clarifies that premium labels are not included. However, it does not name an alternative tool or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some routing to inference from the sibling list.

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