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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: where each balance comes from (a committed collateral is a venue ledger balance published to Base in batches, an onchain collateral is ERC-20 balanceOf), which tells the agent about freshness and provenance of the numbers.

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 the purpose and default behavior, then the provenance model, then the unit note. Every sentence carries information; only the slight overlap between the description's include explanation and the schema's enum description is redundant.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document the response shape, yet it still explains the raw-integer/decimals convention, which is the detail most likely to cause misuse. Given three simple parameters and full annotation coverage, little an agent needs is missing beyond sibling differentiation.

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%, so the schema already documents walletAddress, chainId, and the include enum, giving a baseline of 3. The description's only contribution is restating the include semantics and explaining the returned units; it adds nothing for chainId beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ('Get collateral balances for a wallet') with a clear default scope plus the include="all" variant. It never names or contrasts a sibling such as kellian_list_collateral or kellian_get_positions, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'collateral balances' and 'positions' or 'supported collateral list'.

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?

Usage is implied through the include="default|all" distinction and the note that chainId is optional only when one chain is active, which is helpful context for calling it. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to alternatives like kellian_list_collateral, so the agent is left to infer selection.

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