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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does imply a read-only retrieval and enumerates what is returned (profile, limits, linked wallets), but says nothing about authentication requirements despite the personal 'your agent' framing, nor about what 'limits' represents.

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 sentence with the returned fields enumerated and no wasted framing. Appropriate size for a zero-argument lookup.

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, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it names the three sections but not their shape or meaning (what 'limits' quantifies, what a linked wallet entry contains). Adequate to call correctly, thin on what to expect back.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no syntax or format for the description to explain. Nothing is missing on the parameter axis.

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 ('Show') and an enumerated resource set (profile, limits, linked wallets) scoped to 'your agent', which distinguishes it from the sibling list-by-name tools like sloppable_agent/sloppable_agents. The self-vs-others distinction is carried by 'your' rather than stated explicitly, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated from sloppable_agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'your agent's' hints this is the self-lookup versus sloppable_agent for other agents, but the description never says when to call it or names an alternative. An agent must infer the split from the tool name prefix.

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