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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description's "Read-only... never moves or changes funds" largely restates structured data. It does add some value by disclosing what the trace surfaces (exchanges, mixers, sanctioned wallets, hop counts), but says nothing about runtime cost, rate limits, or how partial/deep traces behave.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output. The trailing "it never moves or changes funds" duplicates the annotation and is internally redundant with "Read-only," which is the only minor waste.

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 (destinations and hops). Combined with 100% schema coverage and explicit read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though performance or partial-result behavior for deep traces remains unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so chain, address, and max_hops (including the default and the 1-12 range) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to hop distance and adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Follow the OUTGOING funds from an address") and states what it produces (destination categories and hop distance). The capitalized "OUTGOING" directly contrasts with the sibling trace_source_of_funds, so an agent can pick the right direction without opening a 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 emphasis implies when this tool applies, but it never names trace_source_of_funds or any alternative, nor does it state exclusions such as supported-chains-only or when to prefer screen_address. Usage is left to inference from the OUTGOING framing.

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