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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. '查询' implies a read-only lookup, and the description discloses the data source ('10 万实体标签库') and output. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, coverage limitations, or behavior when an address has no label.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the useful label-library context and return-value description in a compact way.

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 one-parameter, read-only, lookup-style tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the data source, and the expected return value. Since there is no output schema, the description does state what the tool returns ('which entity the address belongs to'), though it could mention edge cases like missing labels.

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 documents the single 'address' parameter fully, including type, description, and an example. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'EVM address', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and a baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: '查询一个 EVM 地址的身份标签' (query identity label for an EVM address) and states the return value ('返回该地址属于哪个实体'). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools by its label/entity focus, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as explain_transaction, query_alerts, or detect_cluster. The description only states what the tool does; it gives no selection conditions, exclusions, or prerequisite context.

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