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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable return behavior details: it names the specific fields (keepLiquidSol, minSweepSol, paused, nonce, last epoch) and explicitly states the null-if-none case. This goes beyond the annotations and the schema, which lacks an output schema.

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 terse sentences: the first states the action and null behavior, the second enumerates the returned fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the return payload and the null case. It provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly, given the supportive annotations.

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?

The sole parameter walletAddress is fully described in the schema as 'Wallet address.' The description merely repeats the word 'wallet' without adding constraints, format, or disambiguation. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Read the current Autopilot policy for a wallet.' It also lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling operations like set_staking_policy and delete_staking_policy.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to read the current policy) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like set_staking_policy or delete_staking_policy. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the read-only nature is clear from the name and annotations.

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