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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, auth requirements, failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only. "Return" weakly implies a read, but the schema's own warning ("Guest JWT is not a write credential") shows there is relevant auth nuance the description never surfaces.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 and no annotations, the description should characterize the return value, but "the wallet" leaves the shape (address string vs. object) unspecified. Parameter behavior is fully covered by the schema, so the gap is confined to return semantics and auth nuance.

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%, including the optional sessionToken and its "Use listing only. Prefer apiKey" guidance, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb ("Return") and a specific resource ("the wallet bound to a product API key"), so an agent can tell what comes back. It does not reference any sibling tool, so differentiation from the other veya_* lookups is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage signal is the implicit pairing of "product API key" with the apiKey parameter, which the schema already covers.

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