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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses that it never fetches the issuer's record ('we carry the link, we never fetch it'), that statuses are derived from the worker's own declared dates, and that declarations are self-declared and non-gating. This is substantial behavioral context not conveyed by 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?

The description is dense and front-loads the resource and scope, with a useful list of contents. It's slightly redundant ('Self-declared' appears twice, and 'read-only' mirrors the readOnlyHint annotation), but each clause carries meaningful information.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers all needed selection and invocation context: data scope, provenance, link behavior, access (free, keyless), and public mirror. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: the sole 'wallet' parameter is already described as the worker's wallet address. The description adds no new semantics for the parameter, so it sits at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 defines the tool as the Vealth titles register for one wallet, enumerating exactly what it contains (declared titles, status, verify pointer, board evidence, anchor hash). It makes the resource and scope clear, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 description gives clear context: this is for a single wallet's self-declared titles, status is derived from the worker's own declared dates, and it explicitly states 'nothing here gates a claim,' which is a when-not-to-use signal. It doesn't name alternatives or provide an explicit 'use this when...' rule.

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