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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond annotations: current activity takes priority over the latest finished result, safe codes indicate retry vs. reconnecting credentials, and EVM address normalization differs from other networks.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by only high-value behavioral caveats and a direct parameter-passing instruction. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-wallet read operation with a full output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, key behavior, and address normalization. The main gap is the absence of tool-selection guidance relative to siblings, but that is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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%, so the schema already documents all four required parameters. The description adds a small amount of meaning by mapping chainId to 'blockchain network' and reiterating the walletAddress normalization, but it does not substantially enrich parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check one wallet's identity and sync health.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_wallets by scoping to a single wallet, and from get_sync_status by focusing on wallet identity and health rather than a global sync state.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_wallets, get_sync_status, or full_resync. It does mention retrying or reconnecting credentials when interpreting results, but that is response interpretation, not tool-selection guidance.

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