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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the prerequisite and return format (JSON with 'values' object). It doesn't mention auth requirements beyond the required parameters, but given the tool is a read-only list, this is acceptable. Slightly missing details on response structure but output schema exists.

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?

Three concise sentences plus parameter documentation. Front-loaded with main purpose. No fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers prerequisites, return format, and links to related tools. For a listing tool with an output schema, this is complete. The description ensures an agent understands what the tool does and how to use it.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides @param comments defining both wallet_fk and pin. While basic, it adds meaning beyond the schema properties. Could be more specific about formats or constraints, but sufficient.

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 that the tool returns the Netfluid wallet's tokenised Visa/Mastercards. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning the prerequisite of a prior 3D secure transaction and linking to related tools for charging or obtaining the 3D secure link.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: after a 3D secure transaction for tokenisation. Also tells when not to use it: to charge the card, use wallet_visa_mastercard_recharge. Provides clear context and alternatives.

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