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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds important behavioral constraints beyond annotations: the result is scoped to the current user resolved from their API key, and there is no way to query another wallet. It also discloses ordering and pagination style, though it does not discuss rate limits or response shape.

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 purpose and scope, and most sentences add useful decision guidance. The comparison between history feeds is slightly repetitive, and the type examples are not exhaustive relative to the enum, but there is little wasted text.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and 80% schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: current-user scope, ordering, pagination style, and sibling-tool routing. No critical invocation detail 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 description coverage is 80%, and the schema already documents page, limit, token_address, and the transaction_type enum. The description reinforces the purpose of transaction_type filtering and gives example types, but it does not add syntax or guidance for token_address, page, or limit beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific resource (raw wallet transaction list), ordering (newest first), pagination style (page-numbered), and scope (current user only). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from `get_my_activity`, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

It gives explicit guidance for choosing between the two history feeds: prefer `get_my_activity` for the merged timeline, and use `get_my_transactions` when a specific transaction type is needed. It also names the filter field to use for that purpose.

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