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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the OAuth requirement and that no input argument accepts a wallet address, which clarifies the tool's security and tenancy boundaries. These additions are consistent with the annotations and enhance the agent's understanding.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by auth requirements and scope clarification. Every sentence carries essential information without waste.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, the required OAuth scope, and the tenancy isolation. It does not detail the output structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools with similar patterns, this is an acceptable gap.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description explicitly notes that no wallet address argument is accepted because the wallet comes from the OAuth token, which clarifies the absence of parameters. With 100% schema coverage and a clear explanation of why there are no inputs, this 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('the calling wallet's WFLR FTSO delegations and P-chain validator delegations'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_my_* tools like get_my_claimable or get_my_rewards_history. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it requires OAuth scope wallet:read and clarifies that the wallet is resolved from the token, not an address argument (cross-tenancy isolation). This implies usage is limited to the calling wallet, effectively excluding use for other wallets, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when...'.

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