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 describes the report structure, lists included and optional components, and clearly states what the tool does NOT provide (score, verdict, etc.). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the conditional nature of risk_check and flow graph, though it leaves some terms (e.g., 'component statuses') undefined.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a list of contents and a clear exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler. It is concise yet informative.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are structured, and the description provides a clear overview of the report's composition and limitations. It covers the key aspects: what the report includes, what it excludes, and optional components. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings or explain terms like 'component statuses,' which slightly reduces completeness for an agent navigating many similar address-related tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by linking parameters to report sections: 'optional flow graph' maps to include_graph and depth, and 'recent transactions' maps to tx_limit. This helps the agent understand how parameters shape the output, going slightly beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return a free sectioned evidence report for one Bitcoin address.' It specifies the resource (one Bitcoin address) and the deliverable (evidence report), and lists contents (labels, trust-safety, risk signals, overview, recent transactions, flow graph). It also distinguishes from scoring/verdict tools by stating 'Evidence only: no score, verdict, clearance, or compliance recommendation.'

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when an evidence report for a single address is needed) and explicitly limits its scope ('no score, verdict, clearance, or compliance recommendation'), implying alternatives for those needs. However, it does not name specific sibling tools like 'address_risk' or 'risk_check' as alternatives, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance with alternatives.

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