Compare wallets for linkage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds analytic behavior the agent cannot get elsewhere: the specific heuristics run and the 0-100 link-strength output, which matters because there is no output schema. No note on cost/latency from sampling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and following immediately with the usage trigger. The first sentence is dense with a comma-list but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 read-only multi-signal analysis tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers both what it computes and roughly what it returns (link strength per pair). The one real gap is the undocumented transferSample parameter, which an agent might otherwise ignore.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It conveys the addresses constraint ('2-10 wallets') matching minItems/maxItems, but says nothing at all about transferSample, its default, or that it trades off cost against accuracy. One of two parameters is effectively documented, the other is not.

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 + resource (compare wallets) and enumerates exactly what is computed: direct transfers, shared funders, counterparty-set Jaccard overlap, and a 0-100 link strength per pair. The 2-10 wallet scope plus 'test whether separate addresses are the same actor' cleanly separates it from single-wallet siblings like analyze_wallet and from find_cluster.

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?

The closing sentence gives a clear trigger condition ('Use to test whether separate addresses are the same actor'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (find_cluster, find_counterparties) or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context without routing.

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