Get Agent Wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a security-relevant trait: the private key is neither decrypted nor returned, and the record is a 'local' one. It still omits auth/permission requirements and not-found behavior, but the secret-handling disclosure is meaningful context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the retrieval scope is front-loaded and the security caveat follows immediately.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the return payload (metadata record plus profile IDs) and its one exclusion (private key). It is nearly complete for a single-record getter, missing only error/not-found and permission context.

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% for the single walletId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about ID format or source, leaving the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (one local agent wallet metadata record) and scopes the return (profile IDs), which cleanly separates it from agent_list_wallets and the deletion/creation siblings. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

The word 'one' implies lookup-by-ID rather than listing, so usage is implied, but the description never states when to prefer this over agent_list_wallets or what precondition (existing walletId) is required. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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