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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is public market-wide data, explicitly not user-specific. It does not mention rate limits or freshness, but the key behavioral scope is disclosed.

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 earning its place: what the lists are, when to call it, and scope clarification. The primary purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, usage, and scope. The only minor gap is the unmentioned `network` parameter, though its constant 'solana' value makes it low-risk.

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?

There is one parameter (`network`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The schema's const/default of 'solana' makes the parameter effectively trivial, but the description does not compensate for the missing semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the trivial constant parameter.

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 names the resource precisely: 'tracked-wallet lists Moby maintains (whale groups, KOL groups, proven-trader cohorts)' and states the purpose of discovering valid `list_ids`. It clearly separates itself from `get_my_` tools but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling `get_whalewatch_wallet_lists`, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 an explicit when-to-use: 'Call this to discover valid `list_ids` for `get_whalewatch_feed`.' It also gives a when-not-to-use by clarifying this is public market data about the whole market and not the user's own wallet, and directs the agent to `get_my_` tools for personal data. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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