list_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. It does disclose auth context ('authenticated user') and enumerates the returned fields, which is genuinely useful with no output schema. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or behavior for users with no wallets.

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, zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. The second sentence substitutes for the missing output schema rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers ownership scope and the returned fields, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty results, pagination) to be fully complete.

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, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends its words on scope and return shape instead of inventing parameter semantics.

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 (wallets) with an explicit scope: 'owned by the authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from create_wallet/delete_wallet, and the scope phrase implicitly separates it from the singular get_wallet, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative get_wallet for a single wallet. The only implicit signal is that this returns 'all' wallets, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-single choice on its own.

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