Everything the app wallet holds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that this view includes fund shares and that it is the source of the exact mint and exact raw balance, which `app_wallet` cannot see. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or ordering, but for a read-only list tool with annotations carrying the safety burden this is a solid addition.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the differentiator ('EVERY token ... fund shares included') and then the sibling contrast and the call-to-action. Each sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for describing returns; it does this by naming amount, decimals, USD value, exact mint and raw balance. It is complete enough for a simple read-only list tool, though it omits ordering, empty-wallet behavior, or response shape, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, 4 is appropriate; there are no parameter semantics the description could add value to.

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 (list) and resource (app wallet assets), and explicitly scopes the result as EVERY token including fund shares with amount, decimals and USD value. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `app_wallet` by stating that sibling only reports the USDC + SOL float, so the agent need not open either schema to tell them apart.

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?

Gives an explicit activation condition — 'Call this before proposing a withdrawal' — and names the alternative tool (`app_wallet`) plus the reason it is insufficient. The agent knows both when to reach for this tool and why another sibling is not a substitute.

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