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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important precondition (previous wallet_fk assignment) and hints at token retrieval, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, nor does it mention error conditions or permissions.

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 first two sentences are redundant, repeating nearly the same retrieval statement. The description could be condensed to one sentence, and the @param/@return structure is clear but the duplication reduces conciseness.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, preconditions, and return type. However, it lacks details about the returned list contents, pagination, or error handling. Given the output schema exists, the return is minimally handled, but more differentiation from similar tools would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides no property descriptions, but the @param lines add meaning: user_id is the chat-specific customer ID and platform is limited to discord, telegram, or whatsapp. This compensates well for the sparse schema.

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 tool retrieves a list of wallets associated with a specific channel (discord, telegram, whatsapp) and user id. The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'list of wallets' are specific, and the channel+user scope distinguishes it from sibling wallet list tools.

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 description mentions a precondition ('only works if the wallet_fk has been previously assigned') and a downstream use (get a token), which implies when it is applicable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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