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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it names the read endpoint, the required auth scope ('scoped token'), and the returned content shape ('[{wallet, override}] + active letter'). It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only list the added auth and return details are useful.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and return shape, then adds endpoint and auth requirements. Every clause carries useful information with no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, the endpoint, auth prerequisites, and the return shape. It could be more complete by clarifying 'active letter' or listing behavior on token failure, but nothing critical for invocation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema has no properties to document. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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: 'List wallet refs' plus 'active letter', and includes the HTTP method/path (GET /api/v1.1/me/refs). It distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings like memeswap_set_wallet_refs or memeswap_select_wallet_ref by naming the read/list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

Prerequisites are stated ('Requires live user API + scoped token'), and the list operation implies a read context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like memeswap_set_wallet_refs or memeswap_select_wallet_ref. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully specified.

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