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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only reveals that results are paginated and that omitting 'type' lists platforms and counts. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding distinct value: main purpose, return format, and usage tips. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main points: what it does, how to use the 'type' parameter, and its use case for pre-filtering. However, it does not specify the response structure (e.g., fields in the paginated list), which would be helpful for an agent without an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'type' parameter by explaining that omitting it lists available platforms and counts, which is beyond schema. For 'limit' and 'offset', no extra meaning is added.

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 purpose: to discover Base wallets verified by external identity platforms. It specifies the resource (verified wallets) and action (discover), and lists examples (Virtuals, Farcaster, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like mainstreet_verify, which likely handles verification rather than discovery.

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 explicit usage guidance: call without 'type' to see available platforms and counts, and use to pre-filter before scoring. It implies context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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