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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that the verify pointer is carried but never fetched ('we carry the link, we never fetch it'), how status is derived (from the worker's OWN declared dates, with the exact enum current/expired/unknown_expiry), that data is self-declared, and that access is free/keyless/read-only. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for an annotated read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource, but delivered as a long run-on enumeration of returned fields followed by disclaimers; every clause conveys real information, though the density is heavy and could be split for scannability.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, yet the description still characterizes them, and it covers access model and the self-declared caveat. Nothing essential for calling the tool is missing, though usage routing against siblings remains unstated.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the wallet argument; baseline is 4. The description reinforces that a single wallet is the scope ('for one wallet'), which adds framing but no syntax beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (the Vealth titles register for one wallet) and enumerates exactly what each returned title contains: status, verify pointer, board evidence, anchor hash. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like compare_titles or labor_unit without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear context (self-declared, read-only, free, keyless, public mirror URL) and an explicit exclusion: 'nothing here gates a claim or makes hiring, employment, qualification, or fitness decisions.' It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g., compare_titles) or state when to prefer one, so it falls short of 5.

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