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

The annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the data scope (excludes cash/voucher income, newest first) and the ordering, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe any side effects, but given the readOnly annotation, none are expected. The description is transparent about what data is included and what is not.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence defines the content and ordering of the ledger. The second sentence provides usage guidance and the distinction from get_revenue_summary. It is tight, focused, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and appropriate use.

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?

The description provides all necessary context for an agent to decide when to use this tool: it explains the data scope, the ordering, the intended use cases, and the crucial caveat about cash/voucher income. It also points to the correct sibling tool for income queries, ensuring the agent selects the right tool for the user's intent. No additional context is needed.

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 100% of parameters (from, to, limit) with descriptions and types. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is complete, the description does not need to elaborate, but it also doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters. This is a baseline score for when schema handles the semantics.

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 what the tool does: it returns the operator's wallet ledger with gateway earnings, withdrawals, and refunds, ordered newest first. It also explicitly distinguishes it from get_revenue_summary by noting that wallet excludes cash and voucher income, and directs users to the sibling tool for income questions. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for questions about the wallet, payouts, or withdrawals) and when not to (for income questions, since it understates revenue for cash operators). It even names the alternative tool (get_revenue_summary) to use instead. This gives clear, actionable guidance.

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