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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds substantial context beyond that: how statuses are derived (worker's own declared dates), that verify pointers are carried but never fetched, that everything is self-declared and non-gating for employment decisions, and that access is free and keyless with nothing to sign. Those are exactly the behavioral traits an agent can't get from the structured fields.

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 core content is front-loaded and the scope/status/evidence/anchor enumeration is efficient, but the final clauses are redundant: 'Free, keyless, read-only' is immediately restated as 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.' The single run-on sentence also makes it harder to scan.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it already covers provenance, status derivation, evidence scope, and access model. The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing guidance versus closely related tools like compare_titles or verify_work.

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 the wallet parameter is already documented in the schema, and the tool has only one parameter. The description reinforces that the wallet is the subject of the register but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond that. 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?

Names a specific resource (the Vealth titles register for one wallet) and enumerates exactly what is returned: titles, derived status, issuer verify pointer, board evidence, and anchor hash. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compare_titles or verify_work, which do different things with title data.

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?

The description establishes the unit of retrieval ('for one wallet') and the self-declared nature of the data, which implicitly tells an agent when this is the right source. However, it never names alternatives such as compare_titles or verify_work, nor states a when-not condition. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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