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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive intent, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by stating that unwrapping is not performed and that the returned amount is net of fees, which clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with every clause earning its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded ('Read the wrapped SOL...'). There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 one-parameter read-only inspection tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, its key output concept (net-of-fee unwrap value), and its non-mutating nature. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to detail return values for this simple tool.

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 single address parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the base58 public key format and that it is public data. The main description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, so a baseline score of 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 names a specific action ('read') and a specific resource ('wrapped SOL (wSOL) sitting in a Solana wallet's token accounts'), and clarifies it also reports the net SOL value after unwrapping without performing the unwrap. This sets it apart from siblings like check_wallet or check_token_delegates because the purpose is narrowly scoped to wSOL.

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 by defining it as a read-only inspection of wSOL and explicitly saying 'Nothing is unwrapped,' which warns an agent not to expect an unwrapping side effect. However, it does not state alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over other wallet/token checkers.

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