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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that it makes live network calls to each agent's endpoint, discloses a limit of 12 agents, and hints at the output containing probe results and failures, enriching behavior beyond annotations.

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 efficient, front-loading the core action, then explaining rationale, limit, and output in minimal sentences. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

The description covers purpose, live-call behavior, the 12-agent cap, and what output to expect (answers, failures, recorded probes). While there's no output schema, it provides enough for an agent to know what it will get, without detailing exact structure.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (owner format and chainId defaults), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool lists agents for a wallet and calls their endpoints immediately, defining the purpose as checking if agents are answering. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on live probing rather than historical or single-agent checks, with a specific verb and resource.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as the answer to 'is my agent still answering?', signaling when to use it. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough to guide selection over historical uptime tools.

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