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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing what the trace yields (exchange/mixer/sanctioned-wallet destinations and hop counts), though the 'never moves or changes funds' clause largely restates the annotations.

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, purpose front-loaded with the scope of results, followed by the safety clause. The read-only restatement is mildly redundant given the annotations but is short and does not bloat the definition.

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 usefully characterizes the return (destination categories and hop counts) and the direction of tracing. It omits practical caveats such as completeness limits or cost of raising max_hops, but it is adequate for a read-only tracing tool whose annotations cover safety.

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%, including the default and chain-specific nuance for max_hops, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description references hop distance only at a conceptual level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource (follow outgoing funds from an address) plus the scope of the result (destinations, hop distance). The capitalized 'OUTGOING' explicitly contrasts with the sibling trace_source_of_funds, so the agent can route on direction without opening either schema.

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 direction framing ('OUTGOING') gives clear context for when this tool applies versus inbound tracing, and the reported destinations imply the investigation use case. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g. trace_source_of_funds) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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