audit_addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds critical context beyond those: survivorship bias is not controlled, an agent can hide losing wallets, and the tool certifies each address's number rather than 'the best agent'. This is valuable behavioral disclosure that helps an agent set expectations.

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 about three sentences and front-loads the core action. The second and third sentences partly overlap in reinforcing the no-ranking point, but the caveat about survivorship is essential and non-redundant. Overall it is efficient and structured for quick understanding.

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?

With a moderate-complexity tool, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description adds important caveats (survivorship, no discovery/ranking) and states the return shape ('each verdict'). It is complete for an audit tool, though it does not detail potential errors or rate limits, which are not critical given the annotations.

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. The description's mention of 'explicit address list' reinforces the addresses parameter but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. The params remain well-documented by the schema.

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+resource pair ('Run verify_agent across an EXPLICIT address list and return each verdict') that clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from ranking/discovery tools by explicitly saying 'no discovery, no ranking implied' and 'never the best agent'.

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 description clearly communicates it is for auditing an explicit list of wallets rather than discovering or ranking agents, which differentiates it from siblings like audit_leaderboard or verify_agent. It implies when to use this tool—when you already have addresses—but does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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