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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the auth scheme (Bearer rh_live_… or x-api-key), the underlying endpoint, cursor-based pagination with a null terminator, and the non-obvious fact that an empty list returns dataset freshness fields and warnings. That empty-vs-stalled distinction is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot carry.

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 one-line purpose, then endpoint, auth, and a bulleted return breakdown. Every line carries information an agent needs, and the empty-result caveat is placed where paging behavior is discussed rather than buried.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully documents the return shape (wallets, next_before, meta), the auth requirement, and the paging contract. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret an empty page is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns one more by linking the response's `next_before` to the paging loop, which makes the request/response cursor relationship clear. It does not re-explain the role enum values or the limit clamping, leaving that to the schema.

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: 'All settling wallets, filterable by the role they were seen in', which unambiguously separates it from the transaction, agent, and merchant getters in the sibling set. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting with, say, list_transactions-scoped wallet data, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 role filter implies usage ('filterable by the role they were seen in'), and the pagination cursor implies iterative paging, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for related lookups. Adequate implied guidance, no exclusions.

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