wallet_sanctions_preview

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds real value on top with a precise rate limit ('10 per caller per UTC day'), the exact fields returned and withheld, and the cost of the deeper alternative. It stops short of describing failure/latency behavior or what a non-match response looks like.

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?

Compressed into two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The middle clause ('sanctioned, lists, the list date and its freshness') is telegraphic and slightly strained to parse, which costs a point, but overall density is high and every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and exclusions, plus rate limits and the paid alternative. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result, though the handling of the optional chain_id default in a sanctions context is left entirely to the schema.

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% and both parameters (wallet_address, chain_id) are documented in the schema, including CAIP-2 format and accepted chains, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (yes/no check of a wallet address against the OFAC SDN list) and explicitly scopes the output fields ('sanctioned, lists, the list date and its freshness') while naming what is excluded ('no programmes or entry ids'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by flagging 'separate from sanctions_preview' and pointing to verify_wallet for the full screen.

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 concrete routing context: free tier, 10 per caller per UTC day, and an explicit alternative ('The full wallet screen is verify_wallet ($0.11)') so the agent can trade cost against depth. It doesn't state an explicit when-not-to-use condition or the quota interaction with sanctions_preview beyond noting they are separate.

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