List your buyer wallet movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the sort order ('newest first') and the exact composition of the result set, which an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the resource and its contents, then the ordering. Zero filler and nothing buried.

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 two-optional-param read-only listing with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned, in what order. It could note that results are paginated or whether a total count accompanies them, but the schema covers the paging knobs adequately.

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% with clear limit/offset definitions and bounds, so the schema carries the burden. The description says nothing about paging, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('lists') plus specific resource ('movements of their buyer wallet'), and it enumerates the movement categories returned: top-ups, order debits and refunds, gifts, manual corrections. It doesn't name the closest sibling (growwer_get_buyer_wallet for balance, growwer_list_seller_transactions for the seller side), so the distinction is inferable rather than 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?

'Use this when the user asks about the movements of their buyer wallet' gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly excludes balance/other-wallet queries. No explicit 'don't use for X, use Y instead' exclusion against the sibling wallet tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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