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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint false, but the description goes far beyond by detailing cost per wallet, page size, free allowance, ordering by Farcaster follower count, and the billing behavior of retried calls. This adds significant operational context beyond 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 organized into purpose, cost, and results/ordering sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the cost section is slightly verbose. Front-loaded purpose makes it scannable.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, it covers purpose, cost, pagination, and ordering. It does not explicitly describe the response shape (list of wallet objects) beyond mentioning more_pages and ordering, but the absence of an output schema makes that 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, each fully described with patterns and usage notes. The description adds general pagination context (more_pages, next_cursor) but not new parameter-level specifics, so 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?

Clearly states 'Find every wallet in the index attested to an X account' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'The reverse of resolving an address' to distinguish it from the forward direction. This differentiates from siblings like walletlink_resolve_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?

Explicitly tells when to check balance first with walletlink_account_balance, warns about cost on retries, and provides pagination instructions with 'pass next_cursor back'. It also describes the empty-list case for unheld handles, giving clear decision context.

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