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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them — the include/exclude asymmetry for followed wallets depending on `query`, and the scope caveat that this is whole-market data, not the user's own holdings. Missing only operational traits like ranking criteria or result staleness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and the query/no-query split before the disambiguation tail. The `get_my_` prefix rule takes two sentences to state one idea, which is mild redundancy but still informative.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers scope, filtering semantics, and sibling routing. The remaining gap is the undocumented `wallet_type` filter, which an agent would have to guess at.

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?

With 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for `query` (name/brand or exact pasted address, followed wallets included) — meaningful value beyond the schema text. However `wallet_type` (all/kol/trader/whale) and the fixed `network` const receive no explanation anywhere, leaving one filter opaque.

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+resource ('Find-Wallets suggested pool: PUBLIC wallets ranked for discovery') and immediately names what each row carries (`is_following`). It explicitly separates itself from `get_my_followed_wallets` and the `get_my_` family, so an agent can route 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 branches: with `query` it searches by name/brand or exact pasted address and includes followed wallets; with no `query` it returns a ranked pool excluding already-followed wallets, and points to `get_my_followed_wallets` for those. The when-not (this is not user-specific data) is also stated outright.

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