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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds genuine semantic context — that chains are per-address and enumerated in a `chains` field — but says nothing about scoping, ordering, or what an empty result means. Decent additive value, 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the important chain-grouping nuance. The first sentence is an elliptical fragment ('The wallet addresses you track.') but nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero inputs, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, very little burden remains on the description, and it covers the one non-obvious behavior (one address covering all EVM or all Sui chains). Only minor gaps remain, such as scoping to the caller's own wallet and empty-list behavior.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this starts at 4. The description's mention of `chains` refers to returned data (covered by the output schema) rather than inputs, so no parameter meaning is added or needed.

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 the resource precisely — the caller's tracked wallet addresses — and adds that each entry spans every supported chain of its kind (EVM or Sui). The verb is only implied by the name/title rather than stated in the description, but the sibling set (add_wallet_address, remove_wallet_address) makes the read/list role unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and neither sibling (add_wallet_address / remove_wallet_address) is referenced. Usage is strongly implied by the zero-parameter, read-only nature of the call, but the agent must infer the routing rather than being told it.

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