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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' plus the field enumeration implies a safe read, but it does not say whether archived/unverified wallets are included by default, how results are ordered, or that results are paginated. It also lists status values (active/verified/archived) that omit the schema's 'unverified', leaving ambiguity about default scope.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the use case. No filler, though the field enumeration is slightly muddled by mixing return fields and filterable fields in one phrase.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool with four optional parameters, the description covers purpose and return shape but omits pagination expectations, default inclusion of archived wallets, and the relationship to list_assets. Adequate to invoke, but leaves real decisions to inference.

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 coverage is 50%: limit and cursor are documented in-schema, while chain and status rely on enums alone. The description partially compensates by naming the filterable fields, but it mentions a 'type' field that is not a parameter and gives an incomplete status list, which can mislead an agent about what is filterable.

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 verb+resource ('List registered wallets') and enumerates the returned attributes (chain, type, status, accepted assets), which is enough to distinguish it from create_wallet and list_assets. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest sibling, list_assets, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 sentence 'Use it to see which assets can be offered on an invoice' gives a concrete selection context rather than a generic 'use to list wallets'. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer list_assets), so an agent must still infer the boundary with sibling tools.

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