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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results include both past and pending actions, which is useful, but it does not describe response shape, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 front-loaded with the core list operation and stays to two sentences. The examples are useful, though the filter list is slightly incomplete because it omits network filtering, which the schema supports.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and common use cases, and the schema fully documents the filters. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what an action record contains or how results are ordered, and it does not clarify the boundary with actions_get.

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 schema already explains all eight parameters, including enum values and status meanings. The description names several filters but omits network, limit, and offset, and adds no detail beyond the schema, so 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 gives a specific verb and resource: listing past and pending actions for a wallet address. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this list operation from the sibling actions_get tool or explain what actions_get returns instead.

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 includes concrete use cases such as showing pending actions, recent activity, and actions waiting for approval. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not name exclusions or alternative tools for related queries.

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