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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantive context: the 'never ask for a private key or seed phrase' constraint, how each chain verifies (public address, signed message, dust transfer, xpub), and that read-only means it does not move/sell/convert/hold crypto. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by routing, workflow, and safety constraints. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information; only the exhaustive list of panel contents could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values need no explanation. The description covers routing, the blocked_request escape hatch, chain-specific verification behavior, and the no-secrets rule, which is everything an agent needs to invoke this panel-opening tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic framing: 'Pass what the conversation has established (target_price_usd, asset, workflow)' and explains the verify_wallet workflow's meaning and the purpose of blocked_request. It doesn't detail wallet_id or the full enum set, keeping it just above baseline.

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 ('Opens the RealOpen panel beside the current conversation') and immediately differentiates from the sibling open_realopen by noting it is not the full-screen sidebar. The enumerated panel contents make the scope unambiguous.

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 between this tool and open_realopen, explains when to pass workflow='verify_wallet', and instructs setting blocked_request when the user asks for transfer/sell/trade/convert/hold. This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-alternative guidance.

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