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

Annotations only hint that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds substantial operational behavior: billing on matches, misses free, one active job per account, cap at 10x match balance, refusal behavior, failure never billed, and resubmission rerunning and rebilling. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is long but every sentence carries necessary operational information: cost, concurrency, cap, failure handling, polling, and resubmission behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into clear paragraphs.

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, but the description states the return value is a job id and directs the agent to poll walletlink_job_status for progress and results. It also covers billing, failure, the active-job limit, and resubmission consequences, so an agent has the essential constraints needed to call this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the addresses parameter: format, minItems, and the balance-derived cap. The description only restates that a list of addresses is submitted and does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: submitting a list of addresses as a background job. It also clearly differentiates itself from the resolve tool by explaining the deeper scan and that it can find identities resolve reports as never seen.

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?

Provides explicit use conditions: lists larger than one resolve call, or when misses are worth re-checking. It also names the polling path via walletlink_job_status and warns about the one-active-job constraint, so an agent knows when submission will be refused.

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