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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds 'Nothing is collected.' which clarifies that the tool only lists tax tokens and does not perform any collection action. This extra clarification is useful beyond the annotations, though the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 a single sentence, though it uses a dash and an extra clause ('— the tokens whose withheld tax that wallet can collect'). It is reasonably concise and front-loads the primary action and resource. No unnecessary words, but the structure could be slightly tighter.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the input (wallet address), the output (list of tokens and tax rates), and clarifies that no collection occurs. There are no missing details that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions 'a Solana wallet' which matches the schema's 'Solana wallet address to read', but adds no new details about the parameter format, constraints, or behavior. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'transfer-tax tokens a Solana wallet launched through the platform, with each tax rate'. It also clarifies that it is the tokens whose withheld tax the wallet can collect, and explicitly says 'Nothing is collected.' This distinguishes it from other read-only check tools by focusing on tax-specific data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling check_* tools (e.g., check_approvals, check_frozen_tokens). It implies usage for tax-related queries but does not explicitly state a condition or mention alternatives. No exclusions or context are given.

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