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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: most listed wallets hold rather than trade (meta.trading_30d), and the tool measures capability not intent. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences each add unique information: thresholds, tiers, caveat, and sort behavior. Slightly dense but not wasteful; the sort note could be integrated, but overall the description is efficient.

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 explains core return fields (positions_top, meta.trading_30d) and the tool's purpose. It does not mention limit semantics or full sort options, but for a read-only list with two optional parameters, this is nearly complete.

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 'active' value for sort but does not enumerate other sort options or explain the limit parameter. This is partial compensation for a simple 2-parameter schema.

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 ('read') and resource ('wallets holding 10+ ETH or $50K+ in tokens'), and adds distinguishing details like tiers, positions_top, and the 'CAN move a pool' framing. This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as rh_wallet_record and rh_early_wallets.

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 gives a clear when-not ('never who is right or who to follow') and a usage tip (sort='active' orders by trades). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for specific use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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