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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation detail: 'Requires signed wallet proof', telling the agent authentication is mandatory. It stops short of describing return shape or ordering.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core resource definition is front-loaded ahead of the auth requirement. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('calls your wallet still holds') but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, no-output-schema listing tool the description covers what is returned (held calls past exit time) and the auth prerequisite. Return ordering, quantity, or how to act on results is not addressed, but the essential calling information 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%, with all three parameters (wallet, message, signature) fully documented in the schema, including the reference to get_access_message. The description's 'signed wallet proof' phrase reinforces the message/signature pairing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (calls due to exit) with the scoping condition 'your wallet still holds that have reached their exit time', which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_open_calls. It never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'should be closed now' implies the action context for using this tool, so usage is inferable, but the description offers no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not point to get_open_calls or build_order as alternatives for acting on the result.

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