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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description still adds substantive context: the data is read from chain, the bonding curve and pool vaults are excluded from the totals, the response flags wallets holding identical amounts (one bag split across wallets), and program holdings are broken out. It also warns that count=true is a slower read.

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 key qualifier ('Free', top 20, chain-read, exclusions) is front-loaded and every clause carries information. The prose is dense and heavily parenthesized, making it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns itself — and it does, covering holder shares, exclusion rules, duplicate-amount detection, program holdings, and the optional count. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both the mint address and the boolean count flag are already documented, including the 'slower read' caveat. The description restates that count adds the holder count without adding new meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource and scope: the 20 biggest wallet holders of a pump.fun coin, read live from chain, each with its supply share. It explicitly carves out what is excluded (bonding curve and pool vaults) and names the sibling to use next (wallet_records), so it is distinguishable from top_wallets and wallet_trades.

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 'For: who holds this coin, top holders, is the supply concentrated' clause gives concrete trigger questions, and the closing sentence routes follow-up work to wallet_records. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a contrast with the sibling top_wallets, so 4 rather than 5.

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