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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses directionality (outgoing only), attribution/labelling behavior, and a relative cost signal, but says nothing about hop depth limits, latency, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then usage, then cost. No filler and every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 trace tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers operation, direction, attribution, and cost. The notable gap is trace depth/boundaries (how many hops) and what a result contains, though return-value detail is largely exempted here.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the address and its supported chains. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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 (trace) and resource (outgoing flows from an address), and adds the distinguishing traits 'multi-hop' and 'attribution where a node is known'. It is clearly separable from onyx_balance or onyx_watch, though it never names a sibling explicitly, only implying onyx_screen via 'screening call'.

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 an explicit use case ('establish provenance after receiving funds') and a relative-cost cue ('costs more than a screening call') that lets an agent choose it over a cheaper screen. It does not state when not to use it or what a trace cannot resolve.

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