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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: figures are drawn from an 'indexed coverage range', so the agent knows the counts may reflect the indexer's coverage rather than the full chain. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the key outputs and closes with the important indexed-coverage caveat. Every part earns its place, and there is no filler.

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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the resource, the outputs, and the key coverage caveat. There is no output schema, so it does not fully describe response shape or edge cases, but the essential invocation context is adequately provided.

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 schema only defines address as a string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that the address is a Wanchain address, which provides chain context, but it does not give format examples or resolution guidance. For a single obvious parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

States a precise resource (a Wanchain address) and specific output fields: transaction/transfer counts, first seen, last active, and the indexed coverage range. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_address_activity or get_address_flows because it returns aggregate summary figures rather than activity events.

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 summary nature implies this tool is for aggregate stats, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it instead of get_address_activity, get_address_flows, or get_address_tags. The usage context is clear in a general sense, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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