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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, never creates a wallet, and never moves funds. It also details the specific policy boundaries returned. It could mention error behavior or auth requirements, but the side-effect-free nature is clearly conveyed.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and exact items being read; the second sentence reinforces safety by declaring read-only behavior. Every phrase earns its place.

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-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what topics the response covers and explicitly rules out side effects. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed; the schema already confirms no required inputs.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resource: machine-facing Agent Wallet feature gates, Ed25519 signing contract, funded-balance policy, USDC representation, and no-credit boundary. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling capability tools like network_capabilities and passport_product_capabilities.

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 is for reading wallet-specific capabilities, not creating proofs or querying network stats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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