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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses that Vealth sends no email or notifications, that the tool is free and keyless, that it records nothing about the person, and that `since` must be passed because no prior state is stored. This adds meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not express, and there is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the overall scope and then gives trigger phrases and important context about privacy and statelessness. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the rhetorical framing 'One question, the whole picture' is slightly wordy and could be tightened.

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 present and full schema parameter coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what the tool covers, when to use it, how it behaves without stored state, and why `since` is needed. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 every parameter already has a description. The description adds value by explaining why `since` matters—'it cannot know when they last looked, so pass `since` if you know'—and by reinforcing that wallet is an address only. This is above baseline but not extensively loaded with new semantics.

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 identifies a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'One question, the whole picture for ONE wallet' and enumerates what it returns. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing the wallet-specific, all-in-one nature, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like work_status or get_work_packet, so differentiation relies on context.

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 explicit trigger scenarios: 'Use this whenever someone asks how their work is going, whether they got paid, whether anyone reviewed their proof, or what to pick up next.' This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives for related tools, leaving some routing judgment to the agent.

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