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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an important behavioral constraint not in the annotations: 'Requires signed wallet proof,' which is essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed immediately by the authentication prerequisite. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 four-parameter, read-only assistant tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth requirements, and question scope. It could be stronger by clarifying expected answer format or routing relative to sibling tools, but the essential invocation context is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without description-level parameter detail. The description adds meaning by indicating acceptable question domains ('record, prices, risk, integration') and by reinforcing the signed wallet proof requirement, which maps to the wallet/message/signature parameters.

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 ('Ask') and resource ('the AgentZ assistant'), and names four question domains: record, prices, risk, integration. It is clear enough to distinguish from data-fetching siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.

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 parenthetical question domains imply when the tool is useful, and 'Requires signed wallet proof' gives a prerequisite. However, it does not say when to use this versus siblings like get_owner_brief or risk_check, nor does it state any when-not conditions.

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