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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: a 30-second per-wallet chain read cache, a 3-unit cost, malformed-address refusal, and empty-list behavior for wallets with no ladders. That is the operational detail an agent needs to plan around caching and cost.

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 structured into purpose, usage, return shape, behavior and errors, with the routing guidance front-loaded. The return-field enumeration is dense, though it is load-bearing given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description carries the return contract itself — ladder fields, the conditional limitOrder object, and the 50-entry newest-first history — plus error and caching behavior. An agent can invoke and interpret results without further context.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage including a regex pattern, so the schema carries the meaning; the description only corroborates it via 'refused when the address is malformed'. No additional format or sourcing guidance is given, so the baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource ('Reads every live ladder of one wallet across every LoomLadder contract, with its history') plus the scope of the read. It names the siblings it is not (market_tokens, my_positions), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when a wallet asks what it holds, and before plan_ladder_action, which needs the ladderId and contract this returns') and explicit exclusions with named alternatives (market for market_tokens, Earn positions for my_positions). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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