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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that authentication via signed wallet proof is required along with the 48-hour hold semantics. It is a genuine addition beyond structured data, though it doesn't cover volume, ordering, or pagination.

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, zero filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the auth requirement. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by stating the calls are scoped to the 48-hour hold window. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and an auth hint, it is nearly complete, missing only volume/ordering expectations for a read endpoint.

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 wallet/message/signature are already documented and the baseline is 3. 'Requires signed wallet proof' ties the trio to an auth flow but adds no format or sequencing detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 names the resource and its scope precisely ('your assigned calls still inside their 48-hour hold window'), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling list-like tools such as get_exits_due or get_daily_8. It lacks an explicit verb (list/get) and doesn't name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Your assigned calls' establishes personal scope and 'Requires signed wallet proof' establishes an auth prerequisite. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of the get_access_message prerequisite flow, and no alternative named for other call views.

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