validate_eth_address

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: validates format and checksum, returns checksummed form. It also warns about irreversible loss if address is wrong. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., returns false/throwing error on invalid input), but this is minor given the clarity.

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 with no wasted words. The critical warning is front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information about purpose, usage, and outcome.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers validation logic, risk, and return value, enabling confident and correct tool invocation.

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% with one parameter described. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the validation process (EIP-55 checksum) and the output (correctly-checksummed form), which are not in 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 clearly identifies the tool as validating Ethereum addresses, specifies the verb 'verify', and explains what it does: validate format and EIP-55 checksum. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_btc_address by being specific to Ethereum.

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 explicitly states 'USE THIS to verify an Ethereum address before sending funds or storing it', and warns against trusting raw strings. It provides clear context for when to use the tool and the consequence of misuse (lost funds).

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