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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only', cost per call ($0.02 in USDC), and typical latency (under 2s), which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, though these may be less critical for a read-only tool.

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 description is compact and front-loaded. It starts with the core purpose, lists the returned data, gives usage guidance, then cost/performance/read-only, and finally the parameter example. Each sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple read-only wallet inspection tool with no output schema, the description lists all returned data categories, input requirements, cost, and latency. It lacks a detailed return format but gives enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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 input schema only defines address as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds a brief explanation and a concrete example address, helping the agent format the parameter correctly. With only one parameter, this is sufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool provides a one-call profile of a Solana wallet and enumerates the specific data points included (SOL balance, SPL holdings, activity window, failure rate, account age, program flag). This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from sibling tools such as simulate_transaction or health.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you need to judge a counterparty, monitor a treasury, or research a wallet before interacting with it.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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