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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, and the description still adds meaningful context: it is free with no payment or key, and returns the same answer as the free Ethos API. That cost/auth disclosure is the kind of detail annotations cannot express. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or behavior for an address with no profile.

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 core purpose is front-loaded as a question, followed by field inventory, use cases, cost profile, and examples in a logical order. It is dense rather than wasteful, though the long inline example output could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's example output with real field names (profileId, displayName, score, status, userkeys, xpTotal, influenceFactor, stats) is essential and supplied. Combined with cost and use-case guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this single-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the regex already constrains format, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by showing a concrete example address and tying the parameter to the profile that holds it. Marginal gain is limited because the schema already documents the parameter type and pattern.

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 specific question ("Who owns this wallet, and what is their reputation?") and then names the exact resource: the Ethos profile holding an EVM address, with the fields returned. An agent can tell this is a per-address profile lookup, distinct from the search/score/x-handle siblings. It does not explicitly name ethos_user_by_x as the alternative for handle-based lookup, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Concrete when-to-use cases are given: attaching a name and trust level to a counterparty before a trade, transfer, airdrop, or allowlist decision, and screening addresses for bad actors. No explicit when-not or named alternative is provided, so the sibling routing is only implied by the input being an address.

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