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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: 'opaque cursor pagination' explains the pagination mechanism, and 'public activity' plus 'explicit Polymarket proxy wallet address' clarify authentication prerequisites and the required wallet type.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the alias relationship and then states the core purpose, ensuring every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sparse. It conveys the core purpose, alias, and pagination style, but it does not summarize the available filters or activity types, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap.

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 only 20% (cursor and walletAddress have descriptions). The tool description repeats the cursor and walletAddress semantics but does not explain the other eight parameters such as types, eventIds, conditionIds, timestamps, or sortDirection. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('public activity') and scope ('explicit Polymarket proxy wallet address'). It also identifies itself as an alias of polymarket_get_wallet_activity, which distinguishes it from other wallet-related siblings like get_wallet_positions or get_wallet_pnl.

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 implies the tool is for fetching public activity for a proxy wallet and notes the alias relationship, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not conditions. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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