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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful content about what is returned (total USD and per-asset breakdown) but says nothing about refresh timing, caching, or account-link prerequisites that would go beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences with no waste: the return payload is front-loaded and the sibling redirect follows. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately sketches the return shape (total USD plus per-asset breakdown) and the sibling relationship. It is complete for a simple parameterless read; only the absence of any note on account-link state or freshness keeps it from being fully exhaustive.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific resource (the linked Swop account's wallet balances) and characterizes the payload as a snapshot with total USD plus a per-asset breakdown, which is concrete. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from swop_list_my_tokens, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: for launched tokens or merchant Bucks, use swop_list_my_tokens instead. There is no broader when-to-use or prerequisite guidance, but the key routing decision (balances vs. token listing) is covered.

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