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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral nuance of what 'linked' means (shared funder or co-trading within blocks), which is useful. It doesn't disclose output format or limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, and every word earns its place. The two criteria are clearly separated with 'or'.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what the response looks like (e.g., list of addresses), but the annotations and simple schema make this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'address' is described as 'The wallet.' The description adds context that the wallet is the reference point for finding linked wallets, but doesn't add format details beyond the schema's regex pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (wallets) and the relationship criteria (shared funder or trading same tokens within blocks), which clearly distinguishes it from generic wallet tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the criteria are specific enough to identify what the tool does.

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 implies when to use it: when you need wallets related to a given wallet by funder or co-trading behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like wallet_history or follow_wallet, but the context is reasonably clear for an agent.

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