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

Annotations only declare read-only/open-world safety; the description adds caller-scoped resolution from the API key, the hard constraint that other wallets cannot be queried, results being capped, and the cost of large pages. These are behavioral facts the annotations do not carry.

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, then the critical empty-result warning, then pagination and scoping caveats — a sensible priority order. It is dense rather than padded, though the 'filters mirror that tool' sentence is slightly meta and could be tighter.

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 needn't be described; the description instead covers the things that actually cause mistakes — empty-result misinterpretation, caller-only scope, and pagination cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 83% and already documents each filter, so the schema does most of the work. The description still adds value by framing the filter set relative to the whalewatch feed ('minus list selection, since following is orthogonal to lists') and by advising against large `limit`/deep `page` values.

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 resource and scope: 'Trades made by wallets the CALLER follows, newest first.' It explicitly contrasts with the sibling `get_whalewatch_feed` (market-wide), so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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 an explicit when-not: empty means 'you follow nobody or nobody you follow traded recently,' not 'no whale activity anywhere,' and names the alternative `get_whalewatch_feed` for market-wide data. It also bounds when to raise `limit`/`page` ('only if the answer is genuinely not in the first page').

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