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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool returns sync status and transaction counts, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or other operational details, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the two key return details. There is no wasted words or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the scope (in a portfolio) and the content of the response (sync status, transaction counts). It doesn't mention pagination, but that's documented in the schema parameters. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all six parameters (workspaceRef, portfolioRef, page, limit, chainId, pageSize) are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it doesn't go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 (List) with a clear resource (wallets) and scope (in a portfolio). It also adds detail about what's included (sync status and transaction counts), which distinguishes it from get_wallet (single wallet) and add_wallet (creation). This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 a clear context of use: listing wallets within a portfolio. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is distinct enough from sibling tools like get_wallet or add_wallet. An agent can infer when to use this tool, though explicit guidance would strengthen it.

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