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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the address is routing input and does not establish ownership, which tells the agent this is not an authenticated self-lookup. It stops short of disclosing pagination or result shape.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste; the read-only scope is front-loaded and the ownership caveat follows immediately.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and four parameters, the description should carry more of the load. It never explains what holdings are returned, what `dust` or `chains` do, or whether address is required despite required-parameters being 0.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description clarifies that the address may be EVM or Solana (hinting at the `address`/`sol` split), but `dust` and `chains` are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving half the surface ambiguous.

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+resource: read-only holdings for a caller-supplied address, with the endpoint GET /api/portfolio. An agent can identify it as a portfolio lookup, though it doesn't differentiate against siblings (which are largely unrelated anyway).

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 phrase 'caller-supplied public address' and the routing/ownership caveat imply the context for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-avoid guidance relative to alternatives. Use case is inferable rather than stated.

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