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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior-adjacent context: authentication requires api_key and a token obtained from /access/login, and account_fk is a numeric database ID that must not be 0. But it reveals nothing about read-only semantics, failure modes, rate limits, or return shape beyond 'a json object'.

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 core sentence is repeated verbatim at the top, which is pure waste, and the JSDoc block is functional but verbose. The useful content is front-loaded, so structure is acceptable but not tight.

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 3-required-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth chain and parameter meaning reasonably but leaves the return value as an unhelpful 'a json object'. An agent cannot know what fields (address, per-asset balances) to expect.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all three parameters are explained (api_key = app key, token = from /access/login, account_fk = int DB ID, not an address, may not be 0, sourced from /wallet/accounts_list). This adds real meaning beyond bare types, though format details for token/api_key are thin.

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+resource ('Returns a crypto wallet address and balances') scoped by an account_fk, which is concrete enough to act on. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like crypto_balance, crypto_token_balance, or account_info, so the differentiation dimension is unmet.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though several sibling tools (crypto_balance, account_info) appear to overlap. The reader is left to infer selection from the description alone.

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