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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: empty results are a valid answer rather than an error, and identity is resolved server-side from the API key with no way to target another user. That is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: definition, empty-result semantics, and data-scoping. The core identity of the tool is front-loaded in the first clause with zero preamble.

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 explanation is unnecessary; the description only needs to cover scoping and edge cases, and it does both (empty array, caller identity, no cross-user access). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Only one parameter exists `network`, whose schema entry is a bare const with no description. Because it is a single-value const (solana) it needs no elaboration, and the description is not obliged to mention it. The 0% schema coverage is harmless here, but one clause confirming the network scope would have made it airtight.

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: tracked wallets overlapping the CALLER's own holdings, and pins the response shape to the familiar `get_whalewatch_wallet_list_detail`. The explicit 'CALLER's OWN' and 'no way to ask about someone else's wallet' cleanly separates it from whale-wallet and discovery 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?

The 'For you' framing plus the empty-holdings scenario gives a clear condition for using it, and it explicitly rules out the wrong use (querying another user's wallet). It stops short of naming a concrete alternative for the adjacent case, e.g. `discover_wallets_to_follow` when the caller holds nothing and still wants suggestions.

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