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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them. It discloses that unfiltered committed sequences are gap-free per wallet, that the agent must accept only last+1 and stall/resync from the last contiguous sequence on a gap, and that filtered cursors are audit-only. Missing details like refresh cadence or event payload shape are covered by the output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the sequencing rule and filter caveat follow in logical order. The 'last+1' and 'stall/resync' phrasing is terse jargon but remains interpretable in context.

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?

The output schema and annotations already carry the return shape and safety profile, so the description only needed to cover the non-obvious part — the gap-free sequence contract and the limited validity of filtered cursors — which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and safely is absent.

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 80% and every parameter already carries its own description, including the gap/stall semantics on afterSequence and the audit-only notes on the filter params. The description largely restates those constraints at a higher level and adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb and resource — 'Replay the authenticated wallet’s durable private order lifecycle journal' — which is clearly distinct from siblings like problee_get_open_orders or problee_list_trade_fills by being an event journal rather than a state snapshot. It never explicitly names a sibling alternative, so differentiation is implied by the 'journal' framing rather than stated.

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?

Guidance is focused on cursor mechanics: use unfiltered replay for gap-free sequences and treat filtered cursors as 'audit-only' scoped to the exact filter set. That tells the agent how to consume the stream but not when to reach for this tool over adjacent ones such as get_open_orders or list_trade_fills, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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