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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying it returns verified Explorer labels and truncation metadata, and by clarifying the interpretation limit: 'A relation proves only that transactions occurred between addresses; it does not imply common ownership or identity.' This goes beyond annotation coverage.

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 sentences, each purposeful: scope, return contents, and an important caveat. Front-loaded with 'Read-only', clear and lean with no redundant wording.

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 an output schema exists (covering return format), annotations are strong, and the description explains the core concept, boundary, and semantic interpretation, the tool is reasonably complete. However, with 9 parameters and many related sibling tools, the absence of parameter guidance or alternative references leaves a minor gap.

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 does not meaningfully elaborate on the 9 parameters; the schema descriptions themselves are generic placeholders ('Value for the depth parameter'), and the mention of 'depth and truncation metadata' does not clarify parameter usage. No additional semantic meaning is provided over the schema.

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 and scope: 'Read-only bounded graph of indexed native XGR transfers around an address.' It specifically mentions what it returns (aggregated relations, Explorer labels, depth/truncation metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools like expand_address_relation_graph by emphasizing 'bounded' and from transaction search tools by focusing on aggregated graph relations.

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 (use for a bounded relation graph around an address) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool suggestions. Siblings like expand_address_relation_graph and get_relation_edge_transactions exist, but no exclusions or comparisons are mentioned.

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