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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the eight signal inputs, the sanctions lists screened (OFAC SDN, EU, UN), the deterministic BLACKLISTED=0 behavior, the higher-cost nature of the signed endpoint, and error handling for invalid addresses and exhausted free quota. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into Args/Returns/Examples/Error Handling sections, which is easy for an agent to scan. It is on the long side, and the g_address phrasing duplicates the schema's pattern description almost verbatim, which is mild redundancy.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so with a full JSON shape including status enum values and the conditional signature field. Combined with error handling and examples, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'signed' is tied to independent verification via the public JWKS endpoint and flagged as a higher-cost path, and the markdown-vs-json tradeoff is spelled out. The g_address explanation largely restates the schema pattern, keeping it below a 5.

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 ('Get a 0-100 trust score for a Stellar wallet address') and immediately scopes it to the Stellar network, explicitly stating 'No EVM data is used.' It also names the sibling to use instead for EVM addresses, so an agent can distinguish it from nulucre_get_evm_wallet_score and nulucre_get_xrpl_wallet_score without opening any 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?

It states concrete when-to-use conditions ('before executing a payment, approving a swap counterparty, or evaluating a new account') and a when-not-to-use clause routing EVM addresses to nulucre_get_evm_wallet_score. The examples section reinforces both positive and negative triggers.

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