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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is provenance (Moby public whale-tracking data) and the non-obvious fact that opaque wallet references from WhaleWatch are valid inputs here. That is real context beyond the annotations. Minor deduction for repeating the ownership caveat three times instead of adding further behavior detail.

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 critical disambiguation is front-loaded, but the "not the user's portfolio / not about the user's wallet / `get_my_` tools are yours` idea is restated three separate times with emphasis markers. The repetition crowds out space for the unmentioned `network` parameter.

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 values need no explanation; provenance, argument sourcing, and the ownership disambiguation are all covered. The only gap is the unmentioned `network` parameter, which is low-risk given its constant default.

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 0%, so the description must carry the `wallet_address` semantics — and it does: it says where to get the value and that opaque references (not just raw addresses) are accepted, which the bare `string` type would never convey. The `network` parameter goes unmentioned, though its `const: solana` default makes it effectively self-documenting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — what one tracked whale wallet currently holds — and immediately scopes it to a third party. The contrast with `get_my_balances` makes it unmistakable against the large sibling set of `get_my_*` and `get_whale_wallet_*` tools.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it (never for the user's own portfolio) and names the correct alternative (`get_my_balances`). It also tells the agent where to source the required argument — a WhaleWatch feed result — and generalizes that any `get_my_` tool returns user data, which routes the whole family correctly.

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