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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the result is 'recent' and 'newest first', but does not disclose whether the list is paginated, whether the 'limit' parameter caps results, what event types are included/excluded, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some ordering context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful details (event types, ordering). It earns its place without redundancy, though it could add a brief note about pagination or limit behavior without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. An agent does not know the default limit, whether results are paginated, what fields each event contains, or whether the list is filtered by the agent key. Sibling tools like get_receipt and spend suggest a financial context where such details matter for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 50%: the 'key' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description. The tool description adds the 'newest first' ordering context but does not explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior or default. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers half the parameters and the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('wallet ledger events') and clarifies the scope with examples ('top-ups, spends') and ordering ('newest first'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_balance or get_receipt, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 a read-only listing use case and the 'newest first' ordering gives context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_receipt or get_balance. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of pagination for large result sets.

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