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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the result set is very large ('runs into the thousands'), the caller should always bound it with a limit, and pagination proceeds via a cursor from the previous response. It does not discuss rate limits or trimming behavior, which the schema mentions instead.

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 purpose and usage sentence are front-loaded, and the parameter list is terse. However, the parameter block duplicates information already present in the 100%-covered schema, so it is slightly redundant rather than fully earning every line.

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-value explanation is not required. Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what is listed, the chain/type filter, the scale warning, the mandatory limit, and cursor-based pagination. Nothing material is missing 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 all four parameters (including allowed blockchain values, wallet_type meanings, limit default, and cursor usage) are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates those same values rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Browse the wallets CabalSpy tracks') and scopes it by chain and wallet type, which separates it from per-wallet siblings like lookup_wallet or get_wallet_tracker. The phrase 'which KOLs or smart money wallets are covered at all' further signals the browse/coverage intent. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 a concrete use case ('answer which KOLs or smart money wallets are covered at all') and an operational instruction ('Always pass a limit; the full list runs into the thousands'). There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it is clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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