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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool returns 'decoded' transactions with categories and metadata, and explains the pagination mechanism using next_cursor. This transparency is helpful and goes beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return details and pagination guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 moderately complex (4 params, output schema present). The description clearly covers what the tool returns, the scope of chains, and how to page through results. It is complete and actionable without needing to explain return values due to the output schema.

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 all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how start_time relates to the returned next_cursor for cursor pagination, which provides practical semantic meaning not fully captured in the parameter description alone.

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 tool's function: 'Get one page of decoded transaction history for an EVM wallet across DeBank-supported chains.' It specifies the resource (wallet history), the scope (one page, EVM, DeBank-supported chains), and includes return categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_transaction or get_wallet_approvals.

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 provides clear usage instruction for pagination: 'Use the returned next_cursor as start_time to page backward.' It implies when to use this tool (for browsing transaction history) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. Still, the pagination guidance is actionable and valuable.

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