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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds cost per call and free tier, and lists the returned data fields (value, fees, PnL, range, history details), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not conflict 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main capability, followed by the history option and pricing. No fluff; each sentence provides necessary information.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data is returned and how to request closed positions. Coverage of pricing and free tier adds operational context. The only minor gap is explicit pagination instructions, but schema defaults handle that.

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 covers only wallet with a description; description compensates by explaining history=true for closed positions, but does not elaborate on page beyond its schema default. It adds meaning for the history parameter, partially offsetting low schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves Meteora DLMM positions for any wallet, listing specific data points (value, fees, PnL, range) and closed-position history. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dlmm_pool by focusing on wallet positions rather than pool-specific data.

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 usage for wallet position queries but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over dlmm_pool or dlmm_whales. It mentions history=true for closed positions, but does not provide exclusions or alternatives.

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