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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that the tool returns specific activity types (MERGE/SPLIT/REDEEM), includes a pagination object whose key must be passed back, and requires the user parameter. This gives the agent a clear model of how the tool behaves without contradicting any annotation.

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 organized into three short paragraphs, each with a distinct job: scope definition, behavioral/return detail, and alternative routing. Every sentence carries information; there is no redundant or promotional text. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose before discussing filters and return fields.

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 lookup with 7 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential decision points: the required parameter, available filters, response shape, pagination mechanics, and when to choose a different tool. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result, with no significant gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that `user` is required, grouping `market_slug`, `condition_id`, and the time range as narrowing filters, and explaining that `pagination_key` comes from the previous response's pagination object. This enrichment goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one wallet's on-chain Polymarket activity' and immediately distinguishes it from a market-wide trade feed. It clearly names the scope (per-address lookup) and the entity involved (a specific trader), making it easy to differentiate from the sibling get_polymarket_markets.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use it to reconstruct what a specific trader did') and contrasts it with an alternative: 'For market-wide prices rather than one wallet's history, use get_polymarket_markets.' This provides direct routing guidance with no reliance on inference.

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