get_wallet

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned surface (balance, frozen state, spend today, active policy), which usefully signals a read operation. It says nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown wallet_id, freshness/caching of 'spend today', or whether the call is side-effect free.

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?

One compact line, front-loaded with the resource and the highest-value field list. No filler, no redundancy with the name.

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?

Listing return fields partially substitutes for the missing output schema, which is the strongest part of this definition. But for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented identifier parameter, gaps remain around read-only guarantees, ID semantics, and failure 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?

The single parameter wallet_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning — and it never mentions the parameter, its format, or where to obtain a wallet_id. An agent cannot tell an internal ID from a user-facing handle without guessing.

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?

Identifies the resource (wallet) and the operation type (summary/retrieval) and enumerates the exact state fields returned, which clearly separates it from sibling mutations like fund_wallet, set_policy, and revoke. It stops short of a 5 because 'summary' is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, leaving the retrieval action implicit.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as audit_log or check_payment, nor any mention of prerequisites. The read-shaped phrasing implies a state-inspection use case, but the agent must infer that.

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