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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default behavior (keeps historical snapshots and alerts) and the effect of setting keep_history=false (purge everything). This is transparent about the operation's scope and potential irreversibility, particularly the word 'purge'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the default behavior and the optional parameter adjustment in a clear, scannable format.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the primary action, default behavior, and how to customize it. There are no significant missing details that would prevent an agent from understanding when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'address' refers to the wallet to be removed, and it explains the purpose of keep_history ('for audit trail') and what the boolean controls ('purge everything'). This compensates for the schema's sparse coverage, especially for the address parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Remove a wallet from the watchlist.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like pg_whale_add, pg_whale_list, and pg_whale_scan. The purpose is immediately evident and unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the context of the whale tool family, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus others. However, it does provide clear guidance on the keep_history parameter, explaining the default behavior and when to set it to false, which is a form of usage instruction.

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