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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely load-bearing behavior the annotations cannot: no calibrated risk number will ever be emitted, and a silent engine produces a distinguishable failure state. That is exactly the kind of caveat that prevents misreading results.

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 core purpose, then the important negative constraint, then args — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The middle paragraph is a bit repetitive in phrasing ('publishes no calibrated wallet-risk model' / 'will never emit a number') but the redundancy reinforces a critical caveat.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does, by naming each returned component and explaining the findings_checked flag semantics. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret 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?

Only one required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the accepted address formats but adds nothing the schema doesn't (the schema even notes case preservation, which the description omits). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — a forensic read on one blockchain address — and enumerates exactly what comes back (explorer facts, exchange label, cluster entity, itemised findings with citations). It also states the negative case explicitly ('This does NOT return a risk score'), which an agent can use to separate it from scoring or attribution siblings.

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 clear contextual guidance: it is an evidence-gathering tool, and an empty findings list with findings_checked=false signals the engine did not answer rather than a clean result. It does not, however, name when to prefer it over siblings like ofac_check or cex_attribution, so the agent must infer the routing.

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