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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the ISOLATED vs UNKNOWN distinction, explains that edges are index facts rather than ownership claims, warns that there is no CEX label, and cautions that structure does not reveal intent.

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 dense and informative, with the core purpose front-loaded. It repeats the UNKNOWN explanation twice and contains several caveats, but each caveat is material to correctly interpreting the result, so the length is largely justified.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete: it defines all possible verdicts, explains the reasoning and coverage fields, lists edge types, and documents important analytical limitations. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its result safely.

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 only provides a regex pattern for `address`, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that the address can be a wallet or token and that the tool maps its on-chain neighborhood. It could be more explicit about address format requirements, but it adds meaningful semantic scope.

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 states a concrete action ('Map the 1-hop on-chain neighborhood') and a concrete result (one of five explicit verdicts). It fully distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming its exact outputs and the kinds of graph edges considered.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: it is for refusing an interaction, not for accusing a person. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope and verdict semantics make the intended use evident.

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