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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by specifying cursor pagination and the range of activity types covered, which helps the agent understand the shape of the call. It does not mention rate limits or result ordering, but the existing annotations lower the burden.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and appends the pagination detail efficiently.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the one-sentence description leaves too much unstated: the meaning of the 'category' enum, the relationship between 'view' and 'category', and how to use cursor/limit correctly. An agent would likely need to guess or probe to invoke this tool reliably beyond the happy path.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially explain the 'view' parameter through 'transactions, token transfers, or internal calls' and hints at 'cursor', but it leaves the 'category' parameter completely unexplained and says nothing about 'limit' semantics or how parameters interact. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with two enums.

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 identifies the resource (a Wanchain address) and the specific activity types returned (transactions, token transfers, internal calls), which distinguishes it from address-focused siblings like get_address_summary or get_address_flows. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 implies that this tool is for recent address activity, and the mention of transaction types makes the use case evident. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_address_flows, get_address_summary, or get_address_tags, and does not state any exclusions.

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