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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description goes further: unreadable sources are named under 'unreadable' with counts reported as unknown rather than zero, some records lack per-wallet reads, default ordering is newest-first with order/limit for paging, and only an address is accepted (never a private key). It also flags derived data (conditions inferred from settled jobs) and the epistemic status of each record type — a real addition over 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 opening clause is well front-loaded and answers the core question immediately, but the body is one dense paragraph mixing field enumeration, epistemic disclaimers, failure modes and paging, plus a stray typo ('VEALTH'). The semantic caveat is valuable but runs long and could be restructured into distinct sentences without losing content.

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 an output schema and full annotations carrying safety and return shape, the description still covers the non-obvious gaps an agent needs: partial-failure semantics (unknown vs zero), derived-versus-declared distinctions, and ordering defaults. Little that affects a correct call is missing, though explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 100%, so wallet, order and limit are already fully documented, and the description largely repeats them ('pass order and limit to page', 'address only, never a private key'). The one useful addition is that the summary always reflects the whole record regardless of limit, but that is already stated in the schema text — so baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and scope: it returns the complete event-by-event record for one wallet, each row paired with its receipt. It enumerates what falls inside (claimed jobs, proofs, settlements, credits, payouts, votes, titles, acceptor proofs, derived conditions), so an agent can tell it apart from narrower siblings like my_work or account_statement without inspecting schemas.

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 states the tool composes what my_work, my_money, my_votes and worker_titles already read and that it stores nothing, which implies those narrower tools exist for scoped reads. But it never says when to prefer this over a sibling or when to fall back to one — the routing choice is left to inference.

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