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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those: it reads token accounts from both token programs, prices them in one pass, counts empty accounts as reclaimable rent, and discloses the per-call price. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by useful operational details and pricing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, complete annotations, and no output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs: input, scope of assets, valuation method, sorting, token-program coverage, rent handling, and cost. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single wallet parameter, the schema already documents the only input. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond confirming it is a Solana wallet address, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it enumerates everything a Solana wallet holds, specifically SOL, SPL tokens, and Token-2022 tokens, valued in USD and sorted by value. This is a specific verb-resource pair with clear scope, and it is distinct enough from siblings like pump_wallet or smart_money to avoid ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: any time you need a complete, USD-valued snapshot of a Solana wallet's holdings across both token programs. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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