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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the 'Read-only' sentence is partly redundant. The description earns credit for disclosing traversal behavior beyond the annotations: it terminates at labelled entities (exchanges, mixers, services) and reports hop distance. It does not discuss rate limits or result size, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the constraint, the sibling routing, and the safety note. No filler.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: the direction of traversal, the stopping condition, and the shape of the result (labelled entities with hop distance). An agent has everything it needs to call it correctly.

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 are fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to hop distance via 'reports them with hop distance'; it adds no format or default details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb-and-direction ('walk an address's INCOMING funds backwards') plus the question it answers, and names the sibling it is not (trace_funds). An agent can distinguish it from trace_funds 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this for source-of-funds checks; use trace_funds for where money went.' The when-to-use and the alternative are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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