get_user_wallets

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It only adds 'System-level operation for wallet management', which hints at privileged access but does not clarify auth requirements, side effects (e.g., read‑only?), or what happens when multiple identifiers are supplied. The absence of output schema further limits transparency.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly conveys verb+resource+identifiers. The second sentence ('System-level operation for wallet management') is marginally redundant but does not harm clarity. Could be trimmed for even higher conciseness.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens if no identifier is given, what the tool returns (e.g., wallet IDs, balances, metadata), or how it relates to sibling tools like `get_user` or `get_invited_wallets`. An agent lacks key context for correct invocation.

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% (each parameter has a description), so baseline is 3. The description groups them as 'various identifiers' but adds no further meaning—e.g., whether parameters are OR‑combined, if at least one is mandatory (though schema lists none as required), or how conflicts are resolved. Thus no extra value beyond the schema.

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 'Get' and the resource 'wallet information for a user', and clarifies it operates by 'various identifiers', which matches the input schema. It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like `get_user` (user info vs. wallets) and `get_invited_wallets` (wallets via invitation vs. direct user lookup), though it could be more explicit.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `get_invited_wallets` or `get_user`). The description does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how the identifiers should be selected. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the parameter names.

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