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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the sort order and the USD/market-cap enrichment, but says nothing about pagination, freshness, or whether 'tracked' wallets are a limited subset. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter block; every line is short and scannable. The parameter list partly duplicates the schema, which slightly dilutes the value of each line, but nothing is verbose.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. It conveys operation, trigger, and constraints, leaving only minor gaps (subset of wallets tracked, freshness) that an agent could infer. Complete enough 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents each parameter including the chain-specific wallet_type availability and the limit trimming behavior. The description's per-parameter lines ('wallet_type: restrict to kol, smart or whale', 'limit: how many holders') largely restate the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('tracked wallets holding a token'), with clear output semantics (sorted by balance, market cap and price in USD) and chain scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a trading-history tool ('who is still holding, rather than who ever traded it'), so an agent can separate it from get_token_transactions/get_recent_trades without opening a 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 a clear usage trigger ('when the user asks who is still holding') and a contrast case ('rather than who ever traded it'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool that handles trades, so the routing is inferable but not fully explicit.

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