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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuine interpretive context: a sell's size is a router minimum-out floor rather than profit, many addresses are routing contracts, and `fomo_trader` signals a FOMO app match. These caveats materially change how an agent reads the data.

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?

Four compact sentences, each delivering distinct information with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded before the data caveats. Slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 does outline the record's contents (holdings, trades, `fomo_trader`) and reading caveats, which is helpful. However it omits usage routing and any explanation of the required address parameter, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining `address`. It gestures at address types (contracts vs people) but never specifies the expected identifier or format, leaving the single required input essentially undocumented.

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 names a specific resource and scope: one Robinhood Chain wallet's holdings and trades, sourced 'off the chain's own feed.' It is clearly distinct from rh_deployer_record and rh_whale_wallets by implication, though it never states an explicit retrieval verb or directly names a sibling it is not.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus rh_deployer_record, rh_whale_wallets, rh_early_wallets, or my_watched_wallets. The note about `fomo_trader` explains a field, not when or why to invoke the tool.

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