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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the side effects: notifications are sent to a channel and records are kept in the inbox, and a key is required. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false 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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place: what follows, what happens next, and what prerequisite is needed. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important context: purpose, side effects, and authentication requirement. It does not describe return values, but the lack of an output schema lowers that burden and the behavior is sufficiently explained.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description gives contextual meaning to the wallet address by explaining what following it triggers, but it does not add parameter-level details beyond the 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 and resource ('Follows a wallet') and clarifies exactly what that means: buys, sells, and launches are sent to the notify channel and kept in the inbox. This clearly separates it from related tools like wallet_history or unfollow_wallet.

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 intended use is clear: an agent should call this when it wants to receive ongoing wallet activity notifications. It also gives a concrete prerequisite by pointing to the docs for a key. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough.

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