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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: sell sizes are floors derived from the router's minimum-out and must not be converted into P&L, and many addresses are routing contracts rather than people. These disclosures prevent serious misinterpretation and go well beyond what structured annotations provide.

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 three sentences with no fluff: purpose is front-loaded, followed by two high-value caveats. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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, single-argument tool, the description covers the source, the returned content (holdings and trades), and the most important interpretation pitfalls. It lacks explicit output shape and address format details, but the low complexity and strong annotations make it largely adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone 'address' parameter. It only generically implies address identifies a wallet, but gives no format, constraints, examples, or validation context. This falls short of what an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb-plus-resource: it reports what a single wallet holds and has traded, sourced from the chain's own feed. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rh_deployer_record or rh_whale_wallets by scope and focus.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement — an agent needing a wallet's holdings/trades would select this tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. The caveats about sell floors and contract addresses aid interpretation, not tool selection.

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