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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive); the description adds substantial depth beyond them: the returned rebalancerAddress must never be fed back as input, withdrawRequest EIP-712 data is included, gas fees from MetaLend-driven moves can make totals lower than deposits with no matching withdrawal, and a rate limit of 5 calls/min with a 12s minimum spacing. This is unusually rich disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and deprecation, then alternatives, then caveats. It is long, and the gas-fee/total explanation is dense, but each sentence carries operational information rather than filler, so the length is largely earned.

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 full burden of explaining returns, and it does so concrete: field-by-field (rebalancerAddress, withdrawRequest data), plus explicit negatives (no rebalancingManagerAddress, no out-of-wallet pool catalog). Failure mode and rate limits are also covered, leaving no material gap.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the walletAddress-vs-rebalancerAddress warning, so the description adds little syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it only weakly reinforces that 'tokens' implies per-token filtering.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (get a wallet's deployed rebalancer balances) and enumerates the exact breakdown axes: per token, per chain, per protocol/pool, plus net earnings and blended APY. The deprecation marker is front-loaded, so an agent can distinguish and deprioritize it immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to siblings under named conditions: get_config for rebalancingManagerAddress, list_pools for pool catalog/APY on pools the wallet isn't in, and get_default_config for wallets with no rebalancer yet. It also names a hard failure condition, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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