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 clearly explains the resolution process, the fallback to heuristics, and the specific return fields (entity name, type, category, AML relevance, confidence, source URL). This is transparent about both the method and the output, though it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or additional side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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 well-structured sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and mechanism, and the second lists the return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet comprehensive, fitting 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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain both usage and return values. It does so thoroughly, outlining the registry sources, the fallback heuristic, and the output fields. This makes the tool's behavior fully understandable without additional documentation. The description is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 description covers the single parameter 'address' with format details (0x + 40 hex chars), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about the address being a Polygon address and the resolution process, but it does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it neither improves nor degrades the schema's clarity.

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's function: 'Resolve a Polygon address to a known entity via PredictionGuard's Wallet Registry', with a specific fallback to on-chain heuristic classification for unknown addresses. It specifies the resource (Polygon address), the action (resolve), and the outcome (entity details), distinguishing it from sibling wallet tools like pg_wallet_lookup or pg_wallet_risk_profile.

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 usage: when you have a Polygon address and need to identify a known entity or classify an unknown one, this is the tool. It provides context on the registry contents (Polymarket contracts, stablecoins, CEX hot wallets) and the fallback behavior, making the use case clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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