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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: the type filter, the floor applied to XRP-denominated rows, and the proof envelope return wrapping. However, it omits details like pagination, rate limits, and whether the output is exclusively XRP-denominated.

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: the first clause clearly states what is returned. Each subsequent clause adds distinct value (type filter, floor, proof envelope) with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers core behavior. However, the 'proof envelope' is unexplained, and the phrase 'floored at TAGGED_XRP_FLOOR_DROPS for XRP-denominated rows' is ambiguous about whether only XRP rows are returned or if the floor applies only to them. This leaves room for misunderstanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'N' corresponds to the 'limit' parameter ('the last N events'), but gives no further detail on bounds, default, or valid ranges. This is adequate but minimal.

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 action ('Return'), the specific resource ('tagged-watchlist events'), and a key filter (type='tagged'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_whale_events. The mention of the floor and proof envelope further specifies the tool's scope.

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—when you need tagged-watchlist events—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like get_whale_events. The floor threshold hints at a use case but no alternatives are named.

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