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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this tool fans out across contract security, approval risk, and liquidation stress to produce a composite score, which tells the agent the call is heavier/aggregated rather than a single-dimension lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and tightly scoped, but the first sentence and the 'Scope:' sentence overlap ('combines contract security scan, token approval risks, and market liquidation stress' vs. 'combining contract, approval, and liquidation-risk signals'), so some content is restated rather than earned twice.

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?

For an aggregating read tool with an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it adequately covers scope, decision use-case, and sibling alternatives. It stops just short of 5 only because it doesn't note latency/cost implications of a multi-source composite call.

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 with its full enum list) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format hints or constraints beyond 'one wallet or contract', which merely restates the address parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get a unified risk assessment for any address') and enumerates the three constituent signals it composes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from security.contract.scan, token.approval, and wallet.credit_score, so an agent can route without opening 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?

'Use this when the agent wants one prioritized address risk summary' states the selecting condition, and 'Use security.contract.scan, token.approval, or wallet.credit_score when it needs one focused dimension instead' names the alternatives and the condition that favors them. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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