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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real semantic context: the 'enforcement' field indicates which rails actually honor each cap, warning that 'a stored cap is not necessarily a binding one.' That is meaningful, non-obvious behavior beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then data semantics, then sibling routing. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the backticked/---y formatting makes it slightly choppier than a clean prose statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so the inline return-shape description is partly redundant, but it adds value via field semantics (USD decimal strings, null = uncapped, enforcement meaning). Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly.

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 two parameters. The description implies the wallet_address input by saying 'on an agent wallet' and shows wallet_address in the return payload, but it never explains caller_id or why either parameter exists. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 (read) and resource (per-token trading caps / TradingLimit rows) scoped to an agent wallet. It explicitly positions itself as the read counterpart to set_trading_limits and as a sibling of wallet_status, so an agent can distinguish it 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 related tool (wallet_status) and the surface (WalletPolicy), which gives some routing context, but it never states the condition under which an agent should pick this tool over wallet_status or set_trading_limits. Usage is implied by the read verb rather than explicitly guided.

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