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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data is precomputed (not computed on demand), results are paginated, and no scan/refresh occurs, which tells the agent about staleness and cost.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (precomputed, never scan/refresh) is placed where an agent will see it. It is slightly telegraphic, which costs a little readability but not length.

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, but for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves required inputs (as_of_date format, wallet identifier form) and sibling routing unexplained.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies pagination (limit/offset) and wallet scope; it says nothing about the required as_of_date semantics, accepted date format, or what a 'listed' wallet means.

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 (Read) and resource (one listed wallet's precomputed report), plus a scoping attribute (precomputed, paginated). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling retrieve_holdings or export_holdings_csv, leaving an agent to guess which holdings tool applies.

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?

'never scan or refresh' implies this tool only serves cached/precomputed data and should not be reached for fresh computation, which is useful implied guidance. But no alternative tool is named for the refresh/scan case, and no explicit when-to-use condition is stated.

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