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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Reads your ETH, ZENI and Operatives from the chain' usefully signals a read-only, chain-backed operation and reveals the input domain. However, it does not disclose what happens with an empty/unfunded wallet, what occurs when the token is omitted or invalid, or whether the recommendation is deterministic. Those are the gaps an agent would most want covered for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary outcome is front-loaded, the data sources follow, and the calling instruction is last — a sensible ordering for an agent skimming the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return: it partially does by saying the result includes the recommended move, a reason, and the tool to call. It does not describe failure modes or the shape of the returned value beyond that, and with no annotations the safety/auth profile is left entirely 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain both fields: 'wallet' is a wallet address and 'token' is the wallet token used 'if signed in' — that conditional is real value the schema does not convey. It still omits address format (e.g. 0x-prefixed hex) and what happens if a token is passed while not signed in, so compensation is partial.

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 a concrete outcome: it returns 'the single best next move for your wallet, with the reason and the tool to call,' and names the data sources (ETH, ZENI, Operatives on chain). That is enough to tell it apart from sibling tools like 'opportunities' or 'me', which return data rather than a recommendation that routes to another tool. The verb is implicit ('recommends') rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'Pass your wallet address (and your wallet token if signed in)' implies this is an entry-point/orientation call, but the description never explicitly says when to call it versus going straight to siblings like 'me', 'opportunities' or 'city_status'. There are no exclusions or preconditions (e.g. whether it works for unsigned wallets or wallets with no assets). Usage is inferable, not stated.

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