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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the keepalive side effect, which is important, but lacks details on token status outcomes, error handling, or authentication requirements beyond the params. This is adequate but not rich.

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, creating redundancy that adds no value. The @param block is well-structured, but the duplication makes the description less concise than it should 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?

Given that an output schema is present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, when to call it, and all parameters, which is nearly complete for a simple verify/keepalive tool. Missing details about possible statuses or failures are partly mitigated by the output schema.

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 @param lines provide meaningful explanations for all three parameters: api_key is the application's key, token and wallet_fk are sourced from /access/login. Since the schema properties have no descriptions, this fully compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifies') and resource ('wallet token'), and clearly states the additional side effect of keeping the token session alive. It distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools (e.g., crypto_verify) by focusing on the wallet token and session keepalive.

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 explicitly says to 'Call this regularly to keep the token active,' providing a clear temporal context for use. Although it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, the regular-call guidance is a clear directive for the tool's purpose.

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