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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial extra context: pricing ($0.03 per call via x402 on Base, prepaid x-credit-token for unlimited, 1 free call/day), no API key required, and the critical caveat that unchecked factors never read as clean so GO implies everything material was actually screened. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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-loads the core question and verdict, and the screening factors are packed in efficiently. The tail (Not financial advice, pricing tiers, free-call policy) is longer than strictly needed but does carry decision-relevant cost/auth information, so it is not wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining gaps: cost/auth model and the trust caveat about uncovered factors. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and there is only one required parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning (the description's 'Required input: address' just restates it). Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no format, chain, or validation details for the address.

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 decision verb and resource: a wallet risk check that returns one GO/REVIEW/STOP verdict for an address before sending, approving or signing. It enumerates exactly what is screened (OFAC sanctions, Coinbase/Basename identity, wallet vs contract, age, mutable contract logic), which makes it distinguishable from generic siblings like address_check, safe_check or sanctions.

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 a clear activation condition ('Before your agent sends, approves or signs to an address') and explains the semantics of the GO outcome. It does not name or exclude specific sibling tools (e.g. address_check, sign_guard, safe_approve), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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