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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it clarifies data is on-chain balances not inferred activity, explains the tiering logic, describes positions_top, and reveals trading_30d and trading_since semantics. It also warns about the nature of wallets (mostly holders, few traders). This goes well beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 long but every section earns its place: core definition, tier explanation, interpretation warning, trading stats, and sorting guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses a warning block to highlight critical nuance. It could be slightly tightened but remains efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

The description covers the tool's definition, tiers, output semantics (positions_top, meta fields), sorting behavior, and interpretation context. There is no output schema, so it appropriately explains what the returned data means. Minor gaps include lack of explicit mention of pagination or limit behavior, but the essential information for correct use is present.

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. It explains the 'sort' parameter by specifying that 'active' orders by trades instead of balance, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the default 'balance' sort behavior. The description adds meaning to one of two parameters but leaves the other implicit. Given the coverage gap, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 the tool returns wallets holding at least 10 ETH or $50,000 in tokens, read as on-chain balances. It defines the scope precisely (who can move a pool) and differentiates from siblings by specifying the threshold and that it is balance-based, not activity-inferred. The resource and verb are explicit.

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 provides strong interpretive guidance (who can move vs. who to follow, trading behavior stats) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rh_early_wallets or rh_wallet_record. It implies usage for identifying potential pool movers, but does not name exclusions or alternatives.

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