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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the return includes 'running balance', describes the currency resolution fallback chain, and explicitly states 'Requires authentication.' These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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 three sentences long and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds filtering, currency resolution, and authentication. No redundant or vague language.

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 wallet transaction history tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, currency behavior, and authentication. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple list operation. The level of detail is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics, especially for the currency parameter: it explains the smart default resolution rules and explicitly states 'No stale USD default.' This clarifies behavior beyond the schema's simple 'Currency code' description. The taskId parameter is also reinforced by 'Optionally filter by task ID.'

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get your wallet transaction history. Shows all ledger entries with running balance.' It specifies the resource (wallet transactions), the action (get), and the scope (all ledger entries with running balance). It also mentions optional filtering by task ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance or get_bank_transfer_details.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, such as filtering by task ID and the smart default currency resolution logic. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool versus a sibling like get_wallet_balance. The guidance is present but lacks explicit exclusions.

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