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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds genuinely new behavior: account conversions also return the compressed secp256k1 public key and a wallet-import QR payload, and it explicitly reassures that the payload contains only public data (never a seed phrase or private key). It stops short of describing failure modes for malformed or resource-form addresses.

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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the behavioral/security details are ordered after the core definition. The wallet-import rendering instructions are slightly operational rather than tool-defining, but they earn their place by telling the agent what to do with the output.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: Babylon equivalent for both branches, plus public key and QR payload for accounts. For a 6-parameter, read-only conversion tool this is complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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%, including enums for network and accountType, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond the account/resource distinction it already makes at the purpose level.

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 (converts) and resource (legacy Olympia address), and explicitly distinguishes the two input forms it handles: 'rdx1… account or _rr1… resource'. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like inspect_address or resolve_vault_address without opening any 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?

Gives clear situational context: this is the legacy-wallet import path, and the returned string must be rendered as a QR (Settings → 'Import from a Legacy Wallet') to complete the import. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it relative to siblings like inspect_address.

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