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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: node-paid lines carry a null tx_hash and instead name cause_tx and cause_method, and reconcile triggers a from-genesis summation compared against node balance. Missing only things like rate limits or ordering guarantees beyond 'newest first'.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the null-tx_hash edge case, then paging. Dense and mostly run-on sentences, but no filler — every clause carries semantic content.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does precisely: per-line signed amount, counterparty, transaction reference, and post-transaction balance, plus how node-originated entries differ. Paging and the reconcile option are both covered, so an agent can call this correctly without further context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: limit is narrowed to 1-100 (the schema's actual minimum is a meaningless -9e15), cursor is defined as next_cursor from the prior answer, and reconcile is defined as a genesis-summing cross-check. The address parameter is only implicitly covered by 'ledger of a Wanchain address', which keeps this off a 5.

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 and resource — the WAN ledger of a Wanchain address, every WAN in and out, newest first — and enumerates the per-line fields (signed amount, counterparty, transaction, post-balance). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_address_activity, get_address_flows and get_address_summary, which would otherwise read as vague overlaps.

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?

It explains how to page (limit 1-100, cursor from the previous answer) and what reconcile=true does, which is real usage context. But it never says when to pick this over get_address_activity or get_address_flows, leaving sibling choice to inference.

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