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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most decision-relevant behavior: the call is paid ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), which an agent must know before invoking. It also implies a read-only inspection and lists the risk categories examined. What is missing is any hint of the response shape — score scale, thresholds, or verdict fields — which matters since there is no 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and risk list, then the parameter hint, then the usage trigger, then cost. Nothing is redundant and the cost disclosure is placed where it will not bury the primary purpose.

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 a two-parameter, annotation-free tool this covers purpose, trigger, parameter intent, and payment cost. The only gap is the absence of any description of return values (score range, flags, verdicts), which the missing output schema would otherwise have covered.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real intent for 'expected' — comparing against the address you meant to pay to catch a look-alike — which goes beyond the schema's neutral 'known-good address to compare against'.

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 states a specific verb (scores) and resource (a Tron address) and enumerates exactly what risks it checks: poisoning look-alikes, dust attacks, fake-USDT deposits, missing history. That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from tron_usdt_transfers and verify_usdt_payment 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?

It gives clear situational guidance — 'Use before any outgoing USDT transfer' — and explains the conditional use of the 'expected' parameter. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer verify_usdt_payment instead, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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