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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the screening sources (OFAC sanctions, scam/drainer lists, on-chain reputation) and crucially warns 'Absence of a flag is NOT a guarantee of safety.' This addresses a key behavioral limitation. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the 'check before sending' phrasing implies no side effects.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, lists screening criteria, gives a usage example, and ends with a critical caveat. Each sentence earns its place.

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-only check tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage, and safety caveat. It lacks return value details, but without an output schema and given the tool's simplicity, the agent can infer it receives a risk assessment. No critical information 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the address is screened against (sanctions, scam lists, reputation), which is not in the schema. It reinforces the address format by mentioning '0x…' and 'Solana base58' implicitly through 'WALLET or contract ADDRESS', though the schema already states this.

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 'Check' and names the resource 'crypto WALLET or contract ADDRESS', states the purpose 'scam/sanctions risk', and distinguishes itself from siblings like check_url by focusing on addresses. The inclusion of 'before sending funds to it' clarifies the operational intent.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Use for "is 0x… a scam / safe to send to?"'. This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name siblings for exclusion, but the clear scope (addresses vs URLs) plus sibling names makes routing straightforward.

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