List Money Lover wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It says 'List' which implies a read, but it doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive, doesn't mention response structure, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The

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 sentence, no fluff, but it's so short it doesn't convey much. For a simple tool it's acceptable, but there's room for additional clarifiers. However, front-loading is good.

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?

The tool is simple, the description covers the core purpose. However, no mention of return format, pagination, or any edge cases. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more would help, but the simplicity might justify a 3.

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 covers the single optional token parameter with a description. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter's usage or purpose beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('wallets'), and adds a clear scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'), distinguishing it from other list-style tools that operate on different resources. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_transactions or get_categories. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication token), nor does it explain when not to use it. The description is a bare statement with no usage context.

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