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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well: it defines hit rate and dead rate precisely, notes the feed is recomputed at each publish from a forward-only ledger, and explicitly states it ranks rather than recommends. This gives the agent strong expectations about data freshness and interpretation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: source derivation, field semantics, metric definitions, intended use, and recomputation behavior. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the output fields and defining the key metrics. It does not specify result ordering or pagination, but the 'ranks' statement implies ordering and the optional filter params are fully documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it does provide useful context like 'early-buyer cohort' and 'early in' that informs how filters like min_launches and ticker relate to the data.

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 identifies the resource as a wallet book derived from launch_ledger, enumerating the exact fields each wallet entry contains. It is clearly a wallet-level counterpart to the sibling launch_ledger, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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?

It provides clear context: repeat early buyers with high hit rates are the cohort worth watching, and the feed ranks rather than recommends. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over launch_ledger or other siblings, but the derived-from relationship makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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