bulk_address_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses important operational details: maximum batch size (10), supported protocols, and a 50-credit cost. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, but 'retrieve' implies a safe read operation and the added constraints are valuable.

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 compact and efficient, delivering purpose, arguments, and cost in a few lines. The argument list is clearly formatted with no redundant phrases, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, constraints, and cost. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The only gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools, though the batch nature is clear.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'proto' lists valid protocol values and 'addresses' specifies a list of 1-10 items. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not describe address format or other property-level details.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('address category labels and related entity information'). It explicitly notes 'multiple blockchain addresses (up to 10) in a single request', distinguishing it from the singular sibling get_address_label.

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?

Provides clear context for batch queries by specifying 'multiple' addresses, 'up to 10', and 'single request'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_address_label for single-address needs or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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