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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope about including unpriced tokens, but does not describe permissions, edge cases, or how unpriced assets appear in the export.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the output format and included data.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema plus rich annotations, so much context is already structured. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of wallet and as_of_date leaves the definition only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention wallet or as_of_date at all, leaving format expectations for both required parameters unclear.

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 verb and resource: export holdings as CSV, and specifies the included fields plus unpriced-token handling. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_holdings or retrieve_holdings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this export tool versus the sibling holdings retrieval tools. The description implies a CSV export use case but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing advice.

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