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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'Read-only ... never writes anything' sentence largely restates structured data rather than adding new context. The genuinely additive behavioral detail is that with_risk attaches AML scoring metadata, which is useful but thin.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional modifiers. The trailing read-only clause is somewhat redundant given the annotations, but the overall structure is tight and waste-free.

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?

For a five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, both optional behaviors, and the safety profile. It omits how 'significant counterparties' is defined and gives no hint at result shape or pagination, but the annotations and 100% schema coverage carry most of the remaining burden.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the category enum values and with_risk semantics. The description's mention of category examples and the risk flag duplicates that, adding no format, default, or boundary detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List the counterparties an address has transacted with') and clarifies the filtering scope, so an agent can distinguish it from list_transactions or trace_funds. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly for disambiguation, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 explains how to use the optional arguments ('filtered by entity category', 'Set with_risk=true to attach AML risk'), which implies usage, but never states when to choose this tool over trace_funds or list_transactions. The reader must infer the scenario from the resource name.

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