Agent identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful detail by listing what is reported (wallet types, API base URL + cluster, real-money write-path status). It does not discuss auth requirements, failure modes, or rate limits, but for a no-side-effect diagnostic with annotations covering safety, this is solid added context.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the report contents, the second delivers the usage instruction. No filler, no repetition, well structured for scanning.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so precisely by listing the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this diagnostic correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-param tool.

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 states a specific verb (Report) and enumerates the exact resources returned: profile, acting wallet, portfolio/app wallet, sign-in/funding wallet, API base URL + cluster, and write-path status. This is far more specific than a generic identity tool, but it does not explicitly name or exclude close siblings like trader_profile or app_wallet, leaving slight ambiguity about overlap.

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 phrase 'Call this first to confirm the agent is wired correctly' gives clear, actionable when-to-use guidance suitable for an initialization/health-check tool. It does not, however, mention alternatives or when not to call it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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