Get Customer Custodial Wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe repeatable read. The description adds only the vague phrase "Returns the curated wallet," which hints at a filtered view but never explains what 'curated' means or what happens if the wallet does not exist. Minimal added value over the annotations, but no contradiction.

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 line is front-loaded and there is no filler prose. The Args block duplicates what the schema already provides, which is mild waste, but the overall definition is short and scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and "the curated wallet" is not informative about the response shape or fields. For a simple two-ID lookup the requirements are modest, but the return value remains underspecified.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The Args block restates the schema descriptions verbatim (customer id / custodial wallet id) and adds no format, provenance, or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource combination ("Get a single custodial wallet") with the two identifiers used to locate it. This differentiates it implicitly from the list and balance siblings, though it never names them. An agent can tell it fetches one wallet rather than enumerating wallets.

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?

Usage is only implied: use it when you already have both a customer id and a wallet id. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ashar_list_customer_custodial_wallets or ashar_get_customer_custodial_wallet_balance, and no preconditions or failure cases are mentioned.

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