wallet_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires wallet authentication, whether it returns all accounts or just active ones, what happens with pagination (implied by itemsPerPage parameter but not explained), or whether there are rate limits. The description mentions spending limits but doesn't clarify if these are per-account limits or something else.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'all wallet accounts' (scope), 'with their nicknames, addresses, and spending limits' (returned attributes). There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain more about the return format (structure of the list, pagination behavior) and authentication requirements. The mention of 'spending limits' hints at returned data but doesn't provide enough detail for the agent to understand the full response structure.

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 fully documents both parameters (network with enum values and default, itemsPerPage with default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('wallet accounts') with specific attributes ('nicknames, addresses, and spending limits'). It distinguishes from other wallet tools like wallet_add_account or wallet_remove_account by being a read-only listing operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like api_indexer_search_for_accounts or api_indexer_lookup_account_by_id which might also retrieve account information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve account information (e.g., api_indexer_search_for_accounts, api_indexer_lookup_account_by_id, api_algod_get_account_info), there's no indication whether this tool is for local wallet accounts versus blockchain accounts, or whether it requires authentication. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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