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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Monitor' and 'Tracks whale movements' without specifying whether this is real-time or historical, what the output format is, or whether it aggregates data. This leaves significant ambiguity about how the tool behaves.

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 two short sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and it avoids redundancy.

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 no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any operational context (e.g., time ranges, data source). It only covers the basic purpose and leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (address and min_value_eth), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'large transactions' and 'whale movements' loosely relates to min_value_eth but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond 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 monitors large transactions for any Arbitrum address and tracks whale movements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arb_bridge_flows or arb_gas_tracker, which focus on different aspects of Arbitrum.

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 the tool is used to track whale activity for a specific address, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for use.

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