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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the three decision outcomes (ALLOW/REVIEW/BLOCK), which is real behavioral context. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, what checks actually run, whether any state is written, and whether it requires auth or an API key.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, scope, and return values; nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the decision-value mention is valuable, but for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions the definition leaves too much unstated: parameter meaning, invocation prerequisites, and the nature of the checks.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The agent gets no guidance on chain values, the address/amount relationship, or when raw_amount_input should be used instead of amount.

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 ('run transaction checks') and resource ('transaction'), plus the decision output vocabulary. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling check_transaction or explain how 'full' checks differ, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given, despite three plausible siblings (check_transaction, check_transactions_batch, report_scam_address). The agent must guess whether this is the pre-execution gate or a general-purpose check.

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