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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the exact return content and the wallet-signing relevance (dApp definition + origin), which no structured field provides.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the content enumeration plus the usage clause each earn their place. It is dense but not padded.

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 compensates by enumerating what is returned (addresses, badges, dApp definition/origin), which is what an agent needs. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a documented enum (mainnet/stokenet), so the schema already carries the full parameter meaning. The description adds no param-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource (get canonical well-known network addresses) and enumerates the exact contents: XRD resource, faucet, native packages, system badges, plus the dApp definition and origin. This clearly distinguishes it from address-resolving siblings like inspect_address and resolve_vault_address.

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 it to fill manifest addresses without guessing" gives a clear, actionable context that ties it to the build_*_manifest siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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