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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: an API key is mandatory, it comes from POLYRANK_API_KEY, it is sent as a Bearer token, and no browser session is required. It does not describe failure behavior for an invalid or expired tid, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite and the next-step pointer. The auth sentence is slightly dense with implementation detail ('the API key-auth accepts it') but every sentence carries usable information, so there is little waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only resolver with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the auth prerequisite and the follow-up tools, which is the material an agent needs. The only real gap is that the return shape (a wallet address string) and the invalid-tid error case are left implicit.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the qualifier 'masked' and the framing of the value as coming 'from a masked row', which is a marginal gain over the schema's 'Opaque trader id (tid) from a masked row.'

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 and resource: 'Resolve an opaque masked id (tid) to the underlying proxy wallet address.' That is unambiguous about the transformation performed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling polyrank_get_trader_by_tid, which reads like a close alternative, 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?

Gives a clear use case (you hold a masked tid and need the real wallet) and routes the agent forward to polyrank_get_trader_skill and polyrank_get_trader_calibration once the wallet is known. It never states when not to use it, e.g. when the agent already has a wallet address or should call polyrank_get_trader_by_tid instead.

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