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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the return object and its use, but does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, what happens if no registration exists, or any side effects. It adds useful return structure info but lacks safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Returns the wallet's Google Authenticator registration.' appears twice), which wastes space and violates the 'every sentence earns its place' rule. While the @param formatting is structured, the repetitive content makes it less concise. It should be condensed.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no nested objects), the description is quite complete: it states the purpose, outlines the return object fields, provides param semantics, and notes the return format. It lacks error-condition information, but with an output schema present, the return values are sufficiently covered. Minor gaps around prerequisites (e.g., whether the wallet has 2FA enabled) prevent a perfect score.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with meaningful context: api_key ('allocated to your application'), token and wallet_fk ('provided by /access/login'). This provides the necessary semantics for correct invocation, exceeding the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Returns the wallet's Google Authenticator registration.' It further elaborates on the returned object components (Secret, URL, QR-Code), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling 'netfluid__wallet_google_auth_verify' which verifies OTPs. The verb 'returns' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 implies usage ('in order to setup a time based OTP') but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of the verify sibling or exclusions. It provides clear context on the purpose but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so it falls short of higher marks.

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