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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: sourcePool null vs populated semantics, isForSpending meaning, absence of trackingId and correlation limits, and rate limits. These details materially shape caller expectations.

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 earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds exclusions, token scope, field semantics, tracking limitation, and rate limits. No wasted wording or redundant restating of the title.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect: in-transit balances, estimated completion time, entry-level fields (sourcePool, isForSpending), the lack of trackingId, and rate limiting. For a read-only one-parameter tool, this is a complete operational picture.

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% and fully documents walletAddress, including format and EIP-55 normalization. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a wallet's in-transit USDC bridge balances') with explicit scope ('funds moving cross-chain toward a destination pool'). It also explicitly contrasts with get_balances and get_deposit_status, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use get_balances for already-settled rebalancer balances, and use get_deposit_status with a trackingId to track a specific deposit. Also states USDC-only applicability, which rules out other tokens.

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