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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: the required 'onramp:read' grant, the cross-wallet aggregation scope, the 'waiting on them first' ordering, and a full enumeration of returned fields. It stops short of stating result limits, pagination, or what happens with abandoned/rejected additions.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the alternative is named last, which is the right order. The middle sentence is a long comma-spliced field list that is dense to parse, though each element carries information the empty output schema would otherwise leave unknown.

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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly, plus it discloses the auth grant needed. Remaining gaps are volume/pagination behavior and whether non-active additions appear, which matter for a cross-wallet list.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 properties the connected person is adding to Fabrica (Sepolia Testnet)') with explicit scope (across every wallet on their account) and ordering (those waiting on them first). It also names the sibling that returns a single item in full, so the agent can separate it from get_adding_status without opening a schema.

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 clause 'get_adding_status gives one in full' explicitly routes the agent to the alternative for single-property detail. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_my_properties or what_needs_attention, which are the other plausible destinations for a similar question.

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