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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: results include revoked and recovered tokens, not just active holdings. It does not say whether results are paginated, ordered, or how large a wallet's history can be, and 'revoked and recovered' is not explained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition, which is well sized for a two-parameter read. It loses a point because the awkward construction 'got from one of the link owner's soulbound collections' forces the reader to parse an undefined referent rather than stating the scope cleanly.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers what is returned and the inclusion of revoked tokens, and no output schema means return-shape detail is optional. However, the unclear 'link owner' framing and the absence of any note on result size, pagination, or empty-result behavior leave gaps an agent would want closed.

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 100%, with both `id` (FloorFeed collection id) and `wallet` (EVM 0x…/Solana base58) already documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates that the query is scoped to one wallet and one collection but adds no format, ambiguity handling, or edge-case detail beyond the 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?

The description states the resource being returned — the soulbound tokens a given wallet received from a collection — but the verb is implicit ('Every token one wallet got') and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like my_soulbound_collections, my_soulbound_collection or verify_soulbound_holder. The phrase 'from one of the link owner's soulbound collections' also leaves the relationship between the `id` collection and the 'link owner' ambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, even though the sibling list contains at least three plausible substitutes (my_soulbound_collections, my_soulbound_badges, verify_soulbound_holder). The only hint is the 'including revoked and recovered ones' clause, which weakly implies historical/verification use but is not framed as guidance.

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