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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions returning 'a json object' and searching any parameter, but does not explain match semantics, multiple vs single results, required permissions, error behavior, or read-only nature. The repeated 'Returns the wallet white label domain' sentence adds no behavioral depth.

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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting the first two lines. The @param list is structured but the redundant first sentence harms 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?

For a 5-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no schema property descriptions, the description gives basic purpose and partial parameter clarification but omits key invocation details: which parameter combos are valid, whether all non-required params are optional, and any practical example. An output schema exists but this description doesn't leverage it or compensate otherwise.

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 @param block partly compensates: api_key, account_fk (database ID int, not address, not 0), and payat_reference with an example are clarified. However, wallet_fk and account_address are tautological, and optionality/search-combination semantics are not clearly described beyond 'any one of the parameters.'

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 'Returns the wallet white label domain' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'Performs a search on any one of the parameters,' framing it as a lookup/search tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet_accounts_list or wallet_assets_list.

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 only usage guidance is 'Performs a search on any one of the parameters,' which implies the tool can be searched via several identifiers but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, restrictions on parameter combinations, or exclusions. It is implied usage, not explicit.

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