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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description explains the two-tier finality model, provisional-vs-finalized behavior, cursor-page guarantees, publicationState/txHash timing, and ingest freshness.

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 dense and front-loads the key concepts, but the production freshness detail and webhook latency sentence are somewhat extraneous for routine tool selection.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies the remaining critical context: finality semantics, paging behavior, and publication-state timing.

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 parameters are already documented; the description adds useful cursor behavior by explaining that provisional fills never appear on a cursor page, though it does not elaborate on limit or walletAddress beyond 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List a wallet's fills') plus ordering and cursor semantics, and it distinguishes the tool's role for history and P&L from sibling event lifecycle tools.

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?

It states the primary use case (history and P&L) and redirects order-lifecycle gaps to kellian_list_order_events, but it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools such as market trades or trade status.

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