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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: each venue is read independently and reports ok/failed/unavailable plus completeness, so a failed read is not mistaken for an empty result. It omits cost/latency of a multi-venue fan-out call, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the itemized payload and the routing guidance. It is long and reads as one run-on catalog, but nearly every item is load-bearing because the whole point is the union of recoverables.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing recoverables and the per-venue ok/failed/unavailable status model. It stops short of describing response shape or ordering for a fan-out result, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the chain enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what each chain value actually returns (Solana rent/surplus/etc. vs EVM LP fees/bridge withdrawals), which gives the 'chain' parameter operational meaning beyond the enum labels.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read everything a wallet can get back, in one call') and enumerates the concrete recoverables on both Solana and EVM. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the per-venue siblings, so an agent can separate check_wallet from check_reclaimable_rent, check_lp_fees, etc. without opening a schema.

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?

It names the exact use case ('what can this wallet recover') and the alternative ('use the per-venue tools for one venue in detail'), drawing a clean line between the aggregate and the specialized tools. Nothing about when to prefer this over the siblings is left to inference.

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