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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions verification, risk flags, and AML check, but does not describe what the output looks like, whether it performs external lookups, whether it is read-only, or any failure modes. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists three specific sub-functions. Every word contributes value and there is no wasteful repetition.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide more context. It does not explain the nature of the results, how to interpret risk flags, or how this tool differs from closely related siblings, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting or invoking it.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'address' with a clear description, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool performs compliance screening for Arbitrum tokens, with specific sub-functions: verification, risk flags, and basic AML check. It is more specific than simply 'token risk' and implies a distinct compliance angle, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself.

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 phrase 'compliance screening' provides context that this tool is intended for AML/compliance-related token checks, giving an implied use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like arb_token_risk or arb_contract_check, nor does it provide exclusions.

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