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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reinforces that the call 'changes nothing and can be repeated safely' (idempotent, safe to retry) and explains the domain semantics of the statuses — that a lapsed proof authorizes new bindings exactly as a revoked one does. That status equivalence rule is real context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It omits any note on pagination or result volume for possibly long address lists.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the status semantics, then the safety note. No filler, though the middle sentence is dense and could be split for scanability.

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 usefully characterizes the return shape (addresses tagged live/expired/revoked) and the safety profile, but it leaves the single input parameter wholly unexplained and says nothing about ordering or volume. Adequate for a simple read, but one clear hole remains.

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?

The schema has one parameter ('secret') at 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not its purpose, format, whether it acts as an auth credential, or whether it is optional despite being unrequired. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific resource ('your proved payout addresses') and what each entry contains ('marked live, expired or revoked'), so an agent knows this is a status listing of owned payout proofs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling payout_wallet or the plural payouts, leaving some ambiguity resolved only by the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus payout_wallet, payout_wallet_revoke, payout_binding, or payouts. The only implicit guidance is the phrase 'your proved payout addresses', which narrows scope but never names an alternative or a triggering condition.

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