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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated with a cursor and what each record contains (status, credited USDT), but says nothing about ordering, whether pending/unconfirmed deposits are included, or cursor exhaustion behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Paginated with cursor' is largely duplicative of the cursor parameter description, a minor redundancy rather than a flaw.

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, fully-described 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description does the needed extra work by saying what a returned deposit carries (status and credited USDT). Only ordering and filtering/edge-case behavior are absent, which are secondary here.

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 100%, so address_id, limit (1–100, default 25) and cursor semantics are already fully documented. The description only restates that the call is paginated via cursor, adding no format or hint beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource precisely: transfers received on one permanent (static) address, including status and credited USDT. The verb is implicit in the tool name (list) rather than the description, and no sibling such as list_static_addresses or list_transactions is named to sharpen the boundary, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 only implied: the required address_id and the schema note 'address_id from create_static_address' suggest the follow-up pattern after creating a static address. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternative listing tools.

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