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

Annotations are empty, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions auth requirement, but does not disclose whether the selection is persistent, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral impact beyond returning info is unclear.

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 extremely concise at one sentence plus a note, with no wasted words. It could benefit from a slight restructure or bullet points for readability, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, auth, parameter format, and where to find valid values. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, but lacks some behavioral context (see transparency).

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description of the 'currency' parameter including format and a reference to 'get-crypto-list'. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline.

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 'Select currency and get wallet with top-up info', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-crypto-list' by referencing that tool for available options, and from 'get-wallet' by indicating this action selects and returns wallet info.

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 explicitly says '[Auth Required]' and how to pass the API key, and advises using 'get-crypto-list' for available currencies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for related actions (e.g., simply viewing wallet without selection).

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