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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: it explains the three numeric fields and their distinct meanings, warns that total_verified_usd is never a valid POF amount, explains the haircut in pof_ceiling_usd, and describes the zero_balance_hint behavior. It also instructs to present wallets by address, not wallet_id, and to surface the zero-balance hint verbatim. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the trigger and primary function, then structured into clear labeled sections (THREE NUMBERS, PRESENTATION, LINKED ADDRESSES, ZERO-BALANCE NOTE). The content is dense but not bloated, and the critical distinctions are repeated purposefully to prevent errors. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description provides crucial context that the schema alone cannot convey: the mathematical relationship between the fields, when each number is valid, how to handle linked addresses and zero-balance hints, and how to present results to users. It addresses edge cases and gives clear instructions for the agent's response. This is a complete description for a complex tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does add meaning to the output by clarifying the semantics of the three key numbers, which is valuable context for the agent.

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 begins with an explicit trigger: 'Call this whenever the user asks for a wallet summary, wallet list, their wallets, wallet balances, verified holdings, or Proof of Funds ceiling.' It clearly states the function: 'Returns all wallets for the authenticated user with their balances, verification status, and Proof of Funds ceiling.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_wallet or generate_proof_of_funds.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance via the opening 'Call this whenever...' list. It also offers cross-tool advice: 'When the user asks to generate POF, always suggest amounts at or below pof_ceiling_usd.' It clarifies not to use other numbers for POF, effectively saying when not to use certain outputs. No alternative tool is needed for the summary itself, but the context is unmistakable.

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