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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description reinforces safety by stating it does not create, modify, or delete data. It adds context that endpoints use POST body only to carry addresses, which is useful for understanding the API's behavior. It could mention rate limits or response format, but with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately provides routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, and safety in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential for calling it correctly. It explains the batch nature, the safety profile, and the distinction from the sibling. It might benefit from mentioning error handling or rate limits, but the annotations and output schema fill the gaps. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds the crucial insight that the body is typically a list of wallet addresses, which the schema already hints at, but it also directs to get-endpoint for exact schema, adding value. However, it doesn't explain path parameters beyond what the enum provides.

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 clearly states it reads Solana wallet data for many addresses in one call, specifying the resource (batch wallets) and the action (read). It distinguishes from the sibling query-vybe-api by name and scope, noting it is for single-wallet and other reads, which prevents confusion.

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?

It explicitly says to use query-vybe-api for single-wallet and all other reads, providing an exclusion. It also notes the POST body is only for carrying addresses, implying no side effects. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative.

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