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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the per-call price (300 sats / US$0.25 USDC), the sources combined (public list matches and node observations), and the explicit limitations of a clean result. It does not explain the payment/invoice mechanics or what happens on payment failure, which would complete the picture for a paid tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then sourcing, then the caveat, then price. Every sentence carries information, though the price sentence could be merged or moved if a structured pricing field existed.

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, the description must sketch the return content; 'risk level and findings' and 'flags require review' give a workable impression of the response. Given one required parameter and full schema coverage, the remaining gap is the exact response shape and payment error behavior rather than anything blocking invocation.

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 the address, pay_with enum, and l402 token fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or behavioral detail about those parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Return Diamond's existing heuristic risk level and findings for one Bitcoin address" states a concrete verb and resource, plus the scope ('one address', 'existing heuristic' rather than live analysis). However, the name 'score' is generic and the description never distinguishes this from closely named siblings like bitcoin_address_risk, bitcoin_sanctions_screen, or watch_bitcoin_address.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (single-address lookup) and the caveat 'a clean result does not certify safety, legal compliance or ownership' hints at how to interpret results. But it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to the obvious overlapping siblings, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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