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

Annotations declare non-readonly, idempotent=false, destructive=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: it sets status=suspended, pauses active strategies, blocks policy-gated value-bearing actions, is reversible via resume_wallet, and is refused on killed or already-paused wallets. This is rich context beyond the annotation 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 action and reversibility, then structured behavior and constraints. Slightly dense but every sentence adds value; no wasted text.

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?

Well-rounded for a mutation tool: covers state changes, side effects on strategies, reversibility, and refusal conditions. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. The only gap is parameter semantics, which is minor given the simple schema.

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%, and the description does not explain the reason, caller_id, or wallet_address parameters. At baseline 3, the schema types are self-explanatory but the description fails to compensate for missing param documentation.

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 ('Owner pause of an agent wallet') with explicit reversibility, and the scope constraint 'Owner' distinguishes it from generic pause operations like strategy_pause. It clearly contrasts with kill_wallet and resume_wallet via 'reversible' and the refusal conditions.

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?

Specifies that the wallet must not be killed or already paused, and notes equivalence with the web Agent console pause. However, it doesn't explicitly route between pause_wallet and kill_wallet when an agent is choosing a halt mechanism.

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