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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the two-tier provisional/finalized model, that provisional fills never appear on cursor pages, ingest freshness (~1.52s), and txHash null with pending publicationState until batch publication. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the density is largely justified by the tool's complexity. Some material (exact ingest latency figures, txHash lifecycle) is more operational detail than a selector needs, so it is not maximally tight.

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?

Given an output schema already defines return values, the description covers everything else an agent needs: pagination semantics, finality tiers, and publication state. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, chainId, and walletAddress; baseline 3 applies. The description only lightly enriches cursor semantics ('keyset cursor on (timestamp,id)') and adds no format details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a wallet's fills') with the scope ('for history and P&L') and ordering ('newest first; keyset cursor'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the market-level sibling problee_get_market_trades by scoping to a single wallet, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Gives clear context for use (history and P&L) and names an alternative for a distinct need: replay private order lifecycle gaps through problee_list_order_events / POST /orderbook/events. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use versus the market-trades sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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