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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: rows carry a default tax classification, and unauthenticated access silently truncates live-wallet results to 10 rows. That truncation semantics is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what a row is before the filtering and access caveats. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably characterizes the return shape (individual classified rows) and the truncation limit. It is slightly thin on how limit interacts with the unpaid 10-row cap and whether unlock_token is required for beyond-10 results, which the agent must infer from the 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 75%, so most parameters (address pattern, venue keys, tax_year, jurisdiction, sample) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the type/venue filtering, adding no format or interaction detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (individual ledger rows) and enumerates the event kinds it returns (opens, closes, liquidations, funding, mints, staking), plus the default tax classification attached. It is clearly distinct from the get_tax_summary/export_tax_file siblings by being row-level, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

Gives operational guidance ('filter by event type or venue') and a gating caveat (live wallets return the first 10 rows without paid access), which implies when the tool is adequate versus when full history is needed. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent between this and the tax summary/export siblings.

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