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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the scoring inputs (transaction history, balance, token diversity, stablecoins, DeFi activity) and the output grade band, though the grade detail overlaps the existing output schema.

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 and generally tight, but the five scoring factors are listed twice in near-identical form ('Factors: transaction history, native balance, token diversity, stablecoin holdings, DeFi activity' vs. 'Scope: ... based on transaction history, balances, token diversity, stablecoins, and DeFi use'). That duplication costs a sentence's worth of space without adding information.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies the remaining essentials: scoring factors, range, grade band, and routing exclusions. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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% with only two parameters; the chain enum with default and the address field are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, so the 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 ('Calculate an on-chain credit score (0-100) for any wallet'), enumerates the scoring factors, and names the output form (grade AAA to C). It explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings (agent.reputation, agent.card.lookup, token/contract risk), so an agent can route correctly without opening another 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('how active or creditworthy is this wallet?') and explicit when-not-to-use exclusions naming the alternative tools for identity/reputation, card lookup, and token risk. Both directions of routing are covered.

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