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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is claimed' and adds an important behavioral nuance: fees are in many tokens, so the result is a count, never a summed figure. This goes beyond the annotations and prevents a common misuse.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second prevents a likely misinterpretation about summing, and the third confirms the read-only nature. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description fully covers the operation, the venues, the output shape ('count of positions, never a summed figure'), and the lack of side effects. Nothing necessary 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 description coverage is 100% for the single address parameter, which already explains the base58 public key and public-data nature. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Count a Solana wallet's liquidity positions with trading fees waiting to be claimed,' and further scopes it by venue (Orca Whirlpools, Meteora, locked Raydium). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_dlmm_positions or check_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 intended use is clear: when an agent needs to know how many LP positions have claimable fees for a Solana wallet. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and venue list make the appropriate context obvious.

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