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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral traits beyond them: omitted inputs are 'marked skipped, never guessed' (a no-hallucination guarantee) and the response shape ('one overall_verdict plus each check's full result'). It does not, however, disclose latency, rate limits, or partial-failure semantics when one sub-check fails.

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-loaded with the value proposition (3 checks in 1 call) and the constituent tools, followed by the scenario and input rules. Zero padding in the first two sentences; the trailing sample-endpoint pointer is a small addition but useful. Dense and readable.

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 6-parameter, zero-required composite tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what each check does, that inputs are optional, how omissions are handled, and the returned verdict structure. Output schema means return details needn't be restated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter's role. The description adds cross-parameter interaction guidance the schema doesn't state at a glance: all three keys are optional, 'give whichever you have', and the address/token overlap for token-risk. That relational framing earns above baseline.

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 exactly what it does: a composite of three named checks (token-risk + wallet-intelligence + agent-health) in one call, and frames the purpose ('the three questions an agent asks before trusting a new counterparty'). This clearly distinguishes it from the individual siblings token_risk, wallet_intelligence, and agent_health without needing to open any schema.

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 usage context ('before trusting a new counterparty') and implicitly motivates the aggregate over three separate calls via '3 checks in 1 call'. It also guides on inputs (give whichever of address/token/url you have). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent (e.g., 'if you only need one check, call token_risk directly'), so no exclusions or named alternatives.

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