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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'returns data' statement by detailing the output structure (verdict, reason_codes, evidence map, audit_url) and performance characteristics (8s budget vs sub-second SLA). It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or requires authentication, but the nature as an analysis tool is implicit. The transparency is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is longer than average, but it is front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence and then efficiently covers outputs, modes, and usage. Each clause adds value, and the structure is logical (what → what it returns → modes → when to use). It is slightly dense but not wasteful, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (verdict, reason_codes, critical_flags, suggested_action, evidence map, audit_url) and the two operational modes with their SLA differences. It also provides concrete examples of supported targets and usage context. This is a comprehensive description that leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, including enums and defaults. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already contains—it restates the mode names and general context but does not clarify parameter syntax, formats, or edge cases. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a decision-ready answer about an on-chain counterparty...' It clearly enumerates the tool's outputs (verdict, reason_codes, critical_flags, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on risk assurance across multiple asset types. This is unambiguous and immediately scopes the tool's purpose.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before any agent transacts on-chain — sending value, swapping, staking, minting, bridging, or interacting with a contract.' It also differentiates two modes ('outbound' vs 'reverse-call') with distinct use cases and SLA expectations. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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