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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — that it fans out across all supported EVM chains in parallel — but says nothing about rate limits, latency, or failure handling for a multi-chain fan-out.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the scope and outputs front-loaded and no filler; every clause 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 an output schema covering the return shape and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus the many chain.* and wallet.* siblings, which the description omits.

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 single address parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or validation detail (e.g., checksummed vs lowercase) beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Cross-chain wallet correlation') and enumerates the outputs (balance, nonce, activity, diversity score, classification), which is far more than a name restatement. It doesn't, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like wallet.profile or chain.compare, so an agent can't fully disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as wallet.profile or chain.compare. Usage is only implied by the tool's scope.

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