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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: only fully-attested wallets are returned, correlated-source wallets are excluded, auth requirements exist, USDC-only keys fail, each returned wallet costs a match credit, retried calls are billed again, results are ordered by Farcaster follower count, and pagination uses more_pages and next_cursor.

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 sentence carries a distinct operational fact: purpose, exclusions, auth failure, cost, retry billing, ordering, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and keeps supporting details in clearly separated blocks with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, failure modes, pricing, empty results, ordering, and pagination. The only minor gap is that it does not spell out the exact shape of returned wallet objects, though the tool's purpose and sibling context make this less critical.

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%, with handle and cursor already fully documented. The description adds runtime context around cursor continuation and cost implications, but it does not add substantial new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action and resource: finding wallets in the index attested to an X account. It also explicitly frames itself as the reverse of resolving an address, which distinguishes it from the sibling resolve_wallets tool without ambiguity.

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?

It clearly explains this is the inverse of address resolution, giving an agent context for when to use it versus resolving an address. It also gives a concrete precondition around account-key ownership and the ACCOUNT_REQUIRED error. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to walletlink_wallets_by_farcaster_username, the closest sibling alternative.

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