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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial operational context: it measures on chain, corrects for the multiplier issue, returns two numbers per holding, excludes LP/lending, and clarifies access requirements and pricing. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core question and key correction, which is good. However, it is long and includes a detailed empirical anecdote about a multiplier moving 1.0→2.0 and Coinbase's settlement process, plus pricing and header instructions that add bulk. Some phrasing, like 'Required input: wallet' followed by 'No wallet or API key required,' could confuse an agent.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious calculation, what is excluded, and access requirements. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the presence of an output schema means that detail can be supplied elsewhere.

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 input schema already fully documents the single wallet parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that wallet is the required input and mentions no wallet or API key requirement, but it does not add format or chain-specific details beyond the Base context in the prose.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns the actual share count a wallet controls for B20 Asset tokens, correcting for the multiplier() discrepancy in balanceOf(). It also clarifies what output to expect by saying it returns both the unadjusted and owed numbers. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives strong context: use this when you need a wallet's true share ownership rather than raw balanceOf output. It also explicitly excludes LP/lending positions and notes they are 'declared excluded, never zeroed,' which is useful when deciding whether this tool applies. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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