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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: it discloses that results are a composite aggregation of three distinct risk dimensions into a single score, which tells the agent the shape and derivation of the output. It stops short of disclosing latency, rate limits, or partial-failure behavior, so it is not 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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: the capability and its components are front-loaded, followed by usage and then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a fully covered schema, full annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, what it aggregates, when to choose it, and when to prefer siblings. No material gap remains.

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 both parameters (address, chain) are fully documented in the schema, including the lengthy chain enum and default. The description only implicitly references the address parameter ('for any address') and says nothing about the chain dimension, so it does not materially add beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a unified risk assessment for any address') and immediately enumerates the three signals it fuses (contract security scan, token approval risks, market liquidation stress). This distinguishes it from security.contract.scan, token.approval, and wallet.report without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('combined address risk view spanning contract, approval, and liquidation signals') and when not to, routing the agent to 'the focused security or wallet tools' for single-dimension inspection. Both the positive and negative conditions are stated.

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