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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantic behavior: emerald is a textual pass string and 'never a number', earned gold expires after twelve months oldest-first, and expiresNext is a day within 60 days or null. These data-shape rules go well beyond the annotations.

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 wallet contents are front-loaded, which is good, but the run-on sentence piles parenthetical detail, a URL, and redundant emphasis ('emerald is never a number, so never give it as one') into one paragraph. It is information-dense but not tightly structured.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, spelling out field semantics, units, and null/expiry behavior. For a single-optional-param read tool the only real gap is the unexplained limit parameter.

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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it. It refers to 'the recent history' but does not connect that phrase to the limit control, its default of 10, or its 1–50 range, leaving the parameter's effect unexplained.

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 identifies the resource as 'the signed-in person's wallet' and enumerates its contents (gold.balance, diamonds, emerald pass, drip, refill date, expirations, history), which distinguishes it from siblings like my_profile, my_bookings, and my_referrals. It lacks an explicit verb ('get/retrieve'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling my_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that wallet data belongs here rather than in my_profile or my_access.

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