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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them. It explains that every figure is board-recorded rather than chain-read, that credits are receipts and never spendable money, that the board prices no token, that there is no cash-out rail, and that the call is free and keyless. These are important behavioral constraints and there is no contradiction with 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description is long and repetitive. Several all-caps sentences restate the board-versus-chain point and the credit-is-not-money point, and the phrase 'exactly three doors' is left undefined. Some caveats earn their place, but overall the text is overlong for the information it conveys.

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 complex aggregate read with an output schema, the description explains the tool's nature, major caveats, cost, and broad usage trigger. The output schema can carry return-value detail and the parameter schema covers inputs. It still omits routing guidance against many overlapping siblings and leaves 'three doors' unexplained, so it is strong but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both lang and workerWallet are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions reading one wallet and being free/keyless, but it adds no syntax, format, or semantic details beyond the schema. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb/resource: it reads one wallet's whole money picture and enumerates settled dollars, other settled tokens, receipts, standing offers, hours, ledger entries, and three doors. It clearly distinguishes this as a board-side record rather than a chain balance. It does not name or differentiate from overlapping siblings such as account_statement, my_ledger, my_hours, or my_next_step, so it falls short of a 5.

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 broad trigger: use whenever the person asks what they have, what they are owed, or what to do next with it. But with many overlapping siblings, especially my_next_step, my_ledger, my_hours, and account_statement, it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. The usage guidance is therefore implied rather than fully actionable.

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