Safe wallet info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add operational meaning — and it does: the agent's own ETH balance is the gas source for on-chain votes, while Snapshot votes are gasless. It also surfaces the execution-authority fact (sole owner vs. needing confirmations), which materially affects downstream tool choice.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: return fields, gas semantics, invocation priority. Slightly suboptimal that the most actionable instruction ('Call this first') is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden itself, and it does by enumerating every reported field. It also supplies the interpretive context (what the balances mean for voting) that an agent needs to act on the result.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for zero params is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Reports') and a precisely enumerated resource: chain, owners, threshold, nonce, both ETH balances, and whether the signer key is a sole-executing owner. The scope is clearly a read-only configuration/readiness check, which separates it from siblings like safe_pending_transactions and safe_confirm_transaction.

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?

'Call this first' gives an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent when to reach for it relative to the rest of the Safe/Snapshot workflow. It also explains the gas distinction that determines whether on-chain voting is even viable. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative or a when-not-to-use condition.

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