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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them with the non-obvious caveat that an 'unknown' verdict means nothing is known against the address and is NOT a safety assertion — a genuinely useful interpretive rule.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its read-only nature, then input handling, then return vocabulary, then the critical 'unknown' caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 must carry return-value semantics — and it does, enumerating the risk levels (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/unknown) and the underlying sanction, scam, drainer, and phishing flags. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `address` and auto-detection. The description restates the auto-detection behavior but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 case for high coverage.

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 — a read-only risk assessment of a cryptocurrency wallet address — and immediately scopes what it does not do (never moves funds). The wallet-screening resource is clearly distinct from the sibling check_email, check_link, and check_breach 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?

Tells the agent how to invoke it (provide `address`, chain is auto-detected) and clarifies the read-only nature, which sets expectations for use. It does not name when to prefer a sibling or state exclusion conditions, but the siblings target entirely different resources so the distinction is self-evident.

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