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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains key behaviors: only the transaction signer is authoritative for ERC-20 transfers, forged events are flagged but not followed; chain IDs are checked for bridge mode; TRON relay hops are detected as pass-throughs. It also states limitations: 'Reports hops, never identity or intent.' This is thorough, though it could mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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 front-loads the purpose clearly, but the subsequent paragraphs are verbose and include technical details (e.g., '0x2b6653dc reads as a plausible token amount'). While structured, it could be more concise without losing essential information. About 120 words is moderate but denser than ideal for quick parsing.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, three modes, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains each mode's operation and what is reported ('Reports hops'). It does not specify the output format or structure, which would be helpful, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema makes complete return value documentation less critical.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by expanding on parameter semantics: it explains what each mode does in detail, how maxHops works for TRON, and why specific fields are used (e.g., chain IDs). This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'FOLLOW STOLEN FUNDS from the victim's transaction to where the trail dies.' It further defines three distinct modes (moved, bridge, tron), making the tool's purpose highly specific and unambiguous. Without explicitly naming siblings, the unique focus on tracing stolen funds via transaction trails distinguishes it from sibling tools like till_rug_powers or till_kya.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each mode: 'moved: what actually left a wallet...', 'bridge: read a cross-chain exit', 'tron: walk a TRON account's flow.' It implies the scenarios for each mode, offering strong usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or contrast it with alternatives, which would elevate the score to 5.

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