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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that wallets are not ranked by quality, that tags are factual attributes, and that the retern shape is { wallets, filter_echo, notes }. Minor unspecified details such as pagination or data freshness are not material for a catalog lookup.

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 description is front-loaded with the core result, then adds non_ranking behavior, usage context, and return shape. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence serves a purpose; no filler is present.

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 names the top_level return fields and explains the semantics of suitability_tags. It does not fully define WalletOption or filter_echo, but it gives enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents the platform parameter and its enum values. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a catalog of self-custody wallet apps compatible with Gavel', further scoped to Arbitrum One. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_fiat_onramps or list_onchain_indicators.

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 'Useful for' section explicitly names the scenario: an LLM agent helping a user without an existing wallet choose one before onramping funds. It gives guidance to explain custody_model and platform implications and let the user pick, but it does not enumerate exclusions or name alternative tools.

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