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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool reads Arbitrum via RPC, requires no signed authorization, and that all data is public on-chain. This is exactly the kind of transparency needed for an agent to safely invoke it. There is no contradiction with annotations (there are none).

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 structured with clear bold labels and front-loads the central function. The second paragraph justifies purpose, the third covers transparency. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. Length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers input semantics, network specificity, authorization requirements, and the return structure. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are already well-documented in the schema (including the network enum and the fact that the address can be anyone's). The description adds little beyond what the schema already states; it just reinforces the address ownership detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb ('Returns a structured readiness report for the given wallet address') and enumerates the data points (ETH, ERC-20 balances, allowances, blockers). It names the key differentiating output ('blockers') that sets it apart from sibling tools like get_user_positions or get_address_history, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('onboarding flows... verify funded and approved before walking them through a transaction') and points to the high-leverage field. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to judge applicability.

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