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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state 'Read only' plus the important filtering rule that anyone laying low is excluded. However, it does not cover authentication needs, rate limits, or return details, so behavioral disclosure is adequate but limited.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The key exclusions, bounty availability, follow-up tool, and read-only nature are all packed efficiently into that sentence.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what content appears on the wall and that it is read-only. It could say more about the returned fields or heat mechanics, but the core information needed to decide to call it is present.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4.

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 identifies the Wanted wall as a read endpoint containing wallets with active heat, excluding those laying low, plus open heat bounties. It clearly distinguishes the hunting follow-up action by naming prepare_hunt_start, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling bounties tool.

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 gives a clear use context: use this wall to find open heat bounties and then hunt them with prepare_hunt_start. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or compare against alternatives such as bounties or opportunities.

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