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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful output detail ('sizes and metadata') and scoping ('wallet storage'), but lacks information about pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the required wallet parameter.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, but it contains redundancy with 'FREE. (FREE)' which adds no informational value and appears twice. This repetition is a minor structural flaw that prevents a higher score.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with a single parameter and good annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is listed (all assets) and what output to expect (sizes and metadata). No output schema exists, but the description compensates. It does not mention pagination, but the tool's simplicity makes this omission acceptable.

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% for the single 'wallet' parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'assets in your wallet storage' with additional detail 'sizes and metadata'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset (single asset) and search_artworks (search), making the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to list all assets in wallet storage) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or provide alternatives. No direct comparison with get_asset or other listing/search tools is given, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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