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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return format (SOL and lamports), stake sufficiency status, and suggested next steps, which goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the core function, the second explains the output and the alternative. No wasted words or filler.

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 a single well-documented parameter, a simple read-only operation, and no output schema, the description fully covers what is needed. It states the return values (SOL, lamports, stake status, next steps) and provides a comparison to RPC, making it sufficient for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter (walletAddress), with a clear description. The tool description adds little about the parameter itself beyond restating 'any Solana wallet address,' so it does not significantly augment the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check the SOL balance of any Solana wallet address.' It clearly distinguishes from RPC getBalance by noting the return includes SOL amount, stake-readiness status, and suggested next steps. This fully clarifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from alternatives.

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?

The description explicitly directs users to 'Use this instead of Solana RPC getBalance' and explains the added value (stake-readiness status and next steps). However, it does not reference sibling tools like check_stake_accounts or check_address_type, which could be confused with this tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over those alternatives.

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