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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds value with ordering semantics ("Newest first"), pagination mechanics, and the authentication prerequisite ("Requires a wallet signature identity"). It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, which keeps it just short of a 5 given the lower bar set by 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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then pagination, then routing to alternatives, then auth — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense, packing three sibling references and a field list into two sentences, which borders on heavy but every clause carries information.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage and a 100%-documented 5-parameter schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: sort order, paging, auth requirement, and disambiguation from siblings. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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%, including enum value meanings for `timeFilterBy`, `filterByResourceType` and `filterByTypeDelegate`, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description only restates pagination via `offset`/`limit` and lists the type values, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the logged-in seller's delegations") and immediately enumerates returned fields (amount, TRX amount, duration, unit price, type, status, payout). It explicitly distinguishes itself from `tronsave_get_seller_stats` and `tronsave_list_orders`, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit positive case ("a seller's per-delegation history") and two named alternatives with the condition that selects each: earnings totals go to `tronsave_get_seller_stats`, purchased orders go to `tronsave_list_orders` via `isOnlyMyOrder`. The `filterByTypeDelegate` enum even maps MANUAL back to `tronsave_sell_order_manual`, reinforcing correct usage.

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