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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it preserves existing history (non-destructive) and that it returns a requestId for tracking, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the asynchronous nature.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently packs purpose, usage, and follow-up action without filler. Every clause earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs: when to use it, what it does, and how to track completion via requestId. It does not describe edge cases like empty results, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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% – all parameters (wallets, portfolioRef, workspaceRef) have descriptive text. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Pull') and resource ('recent blockchain and wallet activity'), and explicitly contrasts with keeping all existing history, which differentiates it from full resync. This is clear and specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('routine refresh before reports or when new activity is missing') and provides a follow-up action (track requestId with get_request_status). It does not explicitly name alternatives like full_resync, but the context strongly implies the incremental vs. full distinction.

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