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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' adds nothing. What does add value is the disclosure of what the response contains — per-source wallet chains with labels, amounts, assets, dates and transaction hashes — which matters specifically because there is no output schema. It does not mention cost, latency, or limits on how deep a chain is walked.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return-shape detail and then the usage trigger — a sound ordering with no filler. The one wasted element is the closing 'Read-only.', which merely restates annotations, and the middle sentence is dense to the point of being a run-on list.

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 correctly spends its space describing the returned path structure, and it covers arguments via a fully documented schema. What is missing for a graph-tracing tool is sibling differentiation against trace_source_of_funds and any indication of limits on chain depth or result size.

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%: chain's enum, address's meaning and max_paths's range and default are all documented in the schema. The description's 'for each risk source' phrasing loosely echoes max_paths but never explains the parameter or the ordering behaviour beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 specific verb and resource: explain where an address's AML risk originates, enumerating the risk-source categories (sanctioned entity, hack, mixer, scam, frozen funds) and the hop-by-hop path structure. It is clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named sibling trace_source_of_funds, leaving an agent to guess which one answers a 'where did the money come from' question.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use it when the user asks why an address is risky, where its risk or dirty money came from, or through whom the funds arrived.' That is a strong positive usage statement, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer trace_source_of_funds or screen_address instead), so the routing decision against siblings is still partly inference.

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