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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it mentions the return includes a 'Decimal.js summary of current positions' and that values are decimal strings, which helps the agent interpret the output. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each with a clear function: the alias, the core purpose, and the value format. No fluff or repetition, and the most identifying information is front-loaded with the alias and purpose.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, where the data comes from, and a key aspect of the return format. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so no gap 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 already covers the parameter fully with a description explaining it is a public proxy wallet and that Google sign-in does not supply one, so the description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states the resource (wallet PnL), the source (overall leaderboard), and the unique scope (all-time, public). It also identifies itself as an alias of polymarket_get_wallet_pnl, which distinguishes it from the many sibling wallet tools like get_wallet_positions and get_wallet_portfolio_value.

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 purpose statement implies when to use this tool (when all-time public wallet PnL is needed), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling wallet tools, the description offers no direct selection guidance, only implicit inference from the described function.

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