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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a bit of useful context by naming the return payload (bins + total resolved count) and the meaning of the diagram, but says nothing about sparse-data behavior, minimum resolved counts, or what happens with an unknown address.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and definition, then the interpretive value, then the return payload. Efficient with no filler, though 'core skill signal' is slightly promotional rather than operational.

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 does the right thing by sketching the returned payload (bins + total resolved count) and defining what the bins represent. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, missing only edge-case/empty-result behavior.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already documents the proxy wallet address format (0x + 40 hex). The phrase 'A wallet's' confirms the parameter's role but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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+resource: it returns a specific wallet's 10-bin reliability diagram (predicted probability vs observed outcome rate). The 'wallet'/'address' framing implicitly separates it from polyrank_get_trader_calibration_by_tid, though the distinction is never made explicit.

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?

Implies usage by calling calibration 'the core skill signal', which suggests reaching for this when judging trader quality, but it never names alternatives like polyrank_get_trader_skill or polyrank_get_trader_metrics, nor when this is the wrong choice.

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