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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and read-only nature are covered. The description adds that it returns status and amounts, and the purpose of confirming emptiness. This provides helpful context 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?

The description is two sentences: first explains what the tool does and returns, second gives a usage scenario. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple list operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is returned (status and amounts) and when to use it. Minor omission: default limit behavior (10) could be noted, but not critical.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description reiterates the address parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists past sweeps for a wallet address, returning status and amounts. This directly conveys the action and result. It distinguishes from siblings like get_sweep_status (focused on a single sweep) and get_balances by specifying the resource (sweeps) and the filtering scope (by address).

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 a specific use case: confirming a chain was already emptied before trying again. This helps decide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use, though the context is clear enough.

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