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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent), and the description adds substantive context: results are public market-wide data, not the caller's portfolio. It does not discuss result caps, pagination, or ranking behaviour, but with an output schema present those gaps are modest.

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 with the core action and the primary exclusion, then layers the sibling alternatives. Slightly repetitive in restating the public-vs-personal split across two sentences, but every sentence carries disambiguation value.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and alternatives thoroughly. Only minor omissions remain — no mention of result volume or how KOL/brand matches are ranked.

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%; `query` is documented in-schema while `network` is a fixed const with a default. The description adds a real constraint the schema lacks — that a pasted address is not a valid query — and reinforces the accepted input kinds. It says nothing about the `network` parameter, but that parameter is fully pinned by `const: solana`.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find PUBLIC whale/KOL/trader wallets') and pins the two lookup keys (KOL name, whale-list brand). It explicitly distinguishes itself from `search_tokens` and from `get_my_*` tools, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives clear when-not conditions ('NOT by pasted address', 'NOT the same search as search_tokens') and names the alternative for a related intent (`discover_wallets_to_follow` when follow status is also wanted). The scope boundary between public market data and the caller's own data is stated outright.

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