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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: a 50-transaction limit, the fact that deposit rules are the current applicable rules, and that orders include their tokens. This helps the agent understand what the returned wallet object represents.

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 dense sentence that front-loads a stylistic phrase rather than an action. It contains useful detail, but the long parenthetical list and em-dash construction make it less scannable than a direct 'Gets the wallet for the given wallet code, including...' would be.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description leaves key invocation context unresolved: how to obtain or pass the wallet code, and how this tool relates to sibling get_* tools. For a tool that returns multiple related resources, the missing prerequisite and selection guidance make it incomplete.

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 input schema has zero properties, yet the description states 'Needs the wallet code' without naming an argument or explaining how to supply it. This creates a serious invocation gap: an agent following the schema would call with no arguments, while the description implies a required input. The description must compensate for the empty schema but does not.

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 tool name get_wallet and the enumerated wallet contents (balance, transactions, orders, deposits) make the purpose reasonably clear even though the description never uses a direct retrieval verb. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_order or get_deposit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use get_wallet versus siblings such as get_order, get_deposit, or create_wallet. The only usage hint is 'Needs the wallet code,' which states a prerequisite but not a selection condition, exclusion, or alternative.

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