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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-chain scope, the types of NFT data (holds/minted/collected), and activity assessment. It also warns about the ETH balance trap. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then positions the tool as primary, and includes a critical usage warning. It is slightly verbose with the 'CRITICAL:' emphasis but every sentence provides value, and the multi-chain note is concise. Not overly long for the context it provides.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, use cases, and a key trap. It does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., list of NFTs vs summary stats), but the agent gains enough context to invoke correctly. The description compensates well for the absence of annotations.

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 covers the single 'address' parameter with a description already stating '0x wallet address to look up'. The description repeats the need for a 0x address but adds no new details like ENS support, checksum format, or behavior for invalid addresses. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns what NFTs a wallet holds, minted, or collected across specific OpenSea chains, and activity level. It explicitly positions itself as 'THE tool' for wallet-level NFT queries, distinguishing it from siblings like wallet_funds which presumably handles ETH balances.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'what is this wallet / is it active / what does it hold or mint / show me this OpenSea wallet'. Includes a critical warning to call before declaring a wallet empty, contrasting with ETH balance checks. It also states multi-chain capability as an advantage.

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