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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is public market data about a third-party wallet, which is genuinely useful framing, but says nothing about freshness, cost-basis computation basis, or what happens with an untracked/opaque address beyond the schema note.

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 and the sibling contrast lands early, but the 'this is not the user's data' point is made three times in successive sentences (⚠️ clause, 'it is NOT about the user's own wallet', and the `get_my_` prefix rule). Useful signal, over-repeated; two of those sentences could collapse into one.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. What remains is minor: the solana const param is undocumented and PnL/cost-basis semantics (which currency, realized vs unrealized) are only implied by the title.

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 50%: wallet_address is documented (tracked trader wallet, opaque references work), network is a const 'solana' with no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies for a borderline-coverage 2-param tool.

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+scope: a tracked whale's current holdings with cost basis and unrealized PnL per position. Explicitly contrasts with get_whale_wallet_holdings (amount + USD value only), so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: use get_my_balances or get_my_position for the user's own data, and get_whale_wallet_holdings for the lighter view. Also gives a naming heuristic (`get_my_` prefix = user data) that generalizes across the large sibling set.

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