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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it starts an initial sync and reports which addresses were added or skipped. It makes the side effects and partial outcome visible without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: action and outcome first, then the conditional integrationId rule, then exclusions and result reporting. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 covers the key behavioral outcomes and the critical integrationId conditional. It is slightly thin on what 'first sync' entails and how duplicate or partially invalid addresses are handled, but it is largely sufficient for an add tool with three parameters.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must carry the parameter semantics burden. It explains integrationId well, including the EVM special case, but leaves workspaceRef and portfolioRef essentially unexplained and does not detail address format expectations beyond 'EVM 0x address'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add one or more blockchain addresses' to a portfolio. It also clarifies scope by saying it does not configure exchange accounts, which helps distinguish it from other operations.

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 gives concrete routing guidance: omit integrationId for EVM 0x addresses across all EVM networks, and require it for other addresses. It also explicitly calls out an exclusion ('does not configure exchange accounts'), though it does not name a sibling tool as the alternative.

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