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

With no annotations, the description discloses the authorization need (admin api_key) and the temporal nature of the block. It does not elaborate on side effects such as active session invalidation or the concrete reversal process, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 repeats 'Temporarily blocks access to the wallet' in the first two sentences, wasting words. The param/return documentation is structured but the duplication makes it less concise than it could be.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, and temporal effect. It could add more context about side effects, but the essentials are present and the output schema likely fills in return details.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains api_key as requiring admin privileges and wallet_fk as the identifier to pause, which is helpful. The wallet_fk explanation is somewhat circular but does clarify its role as the target, and the admin requirement is explicit.

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 the specific action (blocks access) and resource (the wallet), with scope ('for all systems') and temporality. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives but is distinct enough from access_resume and account_pause by the wallet-specific focus.

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?

The intended use is implied: to temporarily block wallet access for all systems. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor are alternatives like access_resume or account_pause mentioned. The admin privilege requirement is stated, but comparison with related tools is absent.

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