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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the trailing 'Read-only' merely restates that. The description does add real behavioral context beyond annotations: a 5,000-movement scan window and an aggregation by counterparty, with the shared transactions included in the result.

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-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the aggregation detail. Nothing is wasted, though the colon-list phrasing is slightly packed for one read.

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 only two required parameters, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what the agent needs: the entity (counterparties), the metric (XRD in/out), and the scope (latest 5,000 movements). The only gap is behavior when an account exceeds 5,000 movements.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that results are per-counterparty and capped by a recent-movements window, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific framing ('where an Olympia account's XRD came from and went') and names the exact output unit: counterparties with XRD received/sent and the transactions they shared. It clearly differs from a raw transaction listing, though it never names the sibling it replaces (e.g., olympia_get_account_transactions).

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 is only implied: 'counterparties' and 'latest 5,000 movements' signal a flow-analysis task, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many olympia_* siblings.

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