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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that no match is not a clearance, that results carry entry/program/list date, and that each call costs 0.008 USDC via x402 across five payment chains. Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and the description adds cost and interpretation caveats that are not otherwise discoverable.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered by importance: trigger, what is returned, the critical false-negative caveat, then cost. Nothing is repeated and every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema already defining the response shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call it, what a match means, what a non-match does not mean, and the per-call cost. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the single address parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the address-family list. The description repeats the same families (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, Solana) without adding syntax, format, or validation detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: screening a crypto wallet address against the OFAC SDN list. It names the supported chains and the exact nature of the result (exact match with entry, program and list date), which clearly separates it from adjacent checks like get_honeypot_check or get_sol_token_check.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Use when an agent needs to screen a crypto wallet before paying or being paid.' No alternative tool is named as a substitute, but the trigger condition is unambiguous, so it lands just short of the 5 bar.

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