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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the pricing model ($2 USDC per call via x402), the billing waiver when too few sources answer, and the async queuing behavior where the core source is checked before the job is queued and charged. These are material operational facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and chains, then the output inventory, then the billing caveat. It is information-rich with little waste, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan than a broken-out form.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the report's sections (value, allocation, concentration, stablecoin share, risk checks, sanctions screening, rebalancing ideas, PDF). Cost, failure, and async semantics are all covered; only latency expectations and auth/payment mechanics beyond the x402 mention are left implicit.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it restates the 1-5 wallet cap, confirms the PDF deliverable, and clarifies that async checks the core source before queuing and charging, which sharpens the async parameter beyond its schema text.

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 gives a precise verb+resource (a crypto portfolio risk report) and enumerates its contents and the five supported chains and the 1-5 wallet scope, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as wallet_portfolio, wallet, or report_wallet, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the async flag, the charge-waiver condition, and the $2 USDC x402 cost hint at when the tool is appropriate. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling report_* and wallet_* tools.

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