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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a security property ('Never returns a private key or raw signature'), confirming this is a safe inspection call, but says nothing about whether it touches the network, needs auth, or what 'readiness' state means.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the security caveat second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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-param status tool with no output schema, the description should sketch what 'readiness' actually reports (key present, address available, funds, etc.). It stops short of that, leaving the return shape entirely undisclosed.

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description needed to disambiguate. No penalties apply for missing parameter detail.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('AgentLot local self-custody wallet readiness'), which distinguishes it from money/status siblings. However, 'readiness' is left undefined — an agent cannot tell whether this covers connectivity, key presence, funding, or configuration.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus nearby siblings such as auto_money_status or auto_sign_probe, nor any stated preconditions. The only implied usage is a status check, which the agent must infer from the name.

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