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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent, so the 'cannot sign, send, or move anything' line mostly reinforces them; the genuinely additive content is the cost and auth profile ('free and keyless, nothing to sign') and the freshness claim ('live Base balances read at this moment'). That freshness signal matters because the ground truth changes over time, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then safety and cost. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 one-param read tool with an output schema and full annotations, this covers scope, freshness, safety, and cost — everything needed to call it correctly. The remaining gap is not stating how this differs from crypto_tokens or crypto_lp_positions, which an agent may conflate.

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 single `includeBalances` parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including the default-true behavior and the roles-only fallback, so the description adds nothing. With full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: 'the three wallets we operate, each with its role and its live Base balances.' An agent immediately knows it returns wallet roles plus current on-chain balances. It stops short of 5 because it never names which sibling it displaces (crypto_tokens, crypto_lp_positions, my_money all overlap thematically) and uses no explicit verb.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of assuming which wallet does what, and never quote a balance from a document' — a real negative condition that steers the agent away from stale document data. It lacks explicit routing to the nearest sibling tools (crypto_tokens, crypto_lp_positions), so an agent must still infer the split.

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