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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral facts: bad slugs fail with a 404 rather than empty results, and rows arrive pre-ranked. It does not describe pagination or result size, but the output schema exists to cover return 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the slug precondition, then the user-vs-market disambiguation. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

For a low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the two things that would actually cause a wrong call — an invented slug and confusing public market data with the user's own holdings. Return-value detail is correctly delegated to the output schema.

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%; slug is documented in the schema and the description reinforces its provenance and failure mode. The network parameter is undocumented in both places, though its const/default ('solana') makes it near-zero risk. Adds meaning for slug but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and scope: the rows of one curated wallet list, pre-ranked. That is distinct from the sibling get_whalewatch_wallet_lists, which returns the lists themselves, and the description reinforces that dependency rather than restating the name.

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 precondition ('slug MUST come from get_whalewatch_wallet_lists') with the failure mode if violated (a 404, not an empty list). It also names the alternative family ('get_my_' tools) and the condition that selects them — user's own data vs. whole-market public data.

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