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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them, notably that a tier-0 Sui view re-read is 'a fresh upstream call, never a replay of the earlier answer.' It also discloses the return shape (next page plus new cursor if more remains), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the cursor-source detail. The middle sentence is dense with jargon ('tier 0 re-reads the view unshaped') but each clause carries information, so little is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter continuation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what a valid cursor is, where cursors come from, how the re-read behaves, and what comes back including the terminating condition. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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% and there is only one parameter, so a 3 would be the baseline. The description goes beyond the schema's generic 'opaque cursor string from a previous tool result' by naming which tool calls legitimately produce such a cursor, which is the actual ambiguity an agent would face.

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 states a precise verb+resource ('Continue a paged result using the opaque cursor') and enumerates exactly which tools produce valid cursors (getWalletActivity, getLogs, getBalances, Sui views), which separates it cleanly from those producer siblings. An agent can tell this is the consumer/pagination tool without opening any schema.

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 clearly states the trigger condition: use it when you hold an opaque cursor from a previous call, and it names the four cursor sources. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., don't re-invoke the original tool to get the next page), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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