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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paged, loans include the wallet both as borrower and lender, and aggregates ignore the limit/offset window — non-obvious semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The scope and the returned sections are front-loaded, and the pagination caveat is placed as a short closing clause where it is most relevant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so by naming each portfolio section plus the aggregate guarantee. Minor gaps remain (no note on ordering of the property page or behavior for an unknown/zero-activity address), but the definition is sufficient to invoke 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 address, limit and offset are already documented with their defaults and max. The description reinforces that properties specifically are the paged element and that counts/totals are unaffected by paging, but adds 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 ('Get a wallet's land portfolio on Fabrica') and enumerates the composed sections: owned properties, loans, listings/offers, credit history, total value. This clearly distinguishes it as the aggregate/summary tool versus the many single-property siblings (get_land_property, get_land_loan, get_land_boundary), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 closing line 'Counts and totals always cover the whole wallet' implicitly tells the agent that paging does not affect aggregates, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative (e.g., use get_land_property for a single parcel), so selection guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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