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

Even with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is free, requires no account, proves ownership via the paying wallet, requires a nonce to prevent replay, returns paginated results, and explains the placeholder-signature challenge that yields the exact message to sign. This goes well beyond the 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?

The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the second explains critical auth behavior. However, the final paragraph about POST /feedback and complaints is not relevant to selecting or invoking this tool, so the description is padded with nonessential promotional content.

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 no output schema, the description still states the listed fields and pagination, and the input schema covers after/nonce/signedAt/signature in detail. The auth challenge flow is explained sufficiently. It is nearly complete, though the output envelope (e.g., array shape and nextCursor) is only implied by the schema's after description.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the unusual workflow: send a placeholder signature once and the refusal returns details.expected with the exact signing message in both EIP-191 and ed25519 forms. This clarifies how the required signature parameter is actually obtained.

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 specifies the verb ('list'), the resource ('objects your wallet owns'), and the returned fields (id, label, size, created/expires). It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like storage_read or storage_usage, but the owned-objects listing scope is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus storage_read, storage_usage, or search_listings. The description focuses on authentication mechanics and free access, but never tells an agent when it should pick this tool or when it should not.

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