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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe-read profile, the description still adds real value: it discloses the return shape (entity type, metadata, and a *summary* of details), which implicitly tells the agent this is a shallow generic read rather than a deep type-specific one. It omits any note on pagination, size limits, or error behavior for unknown 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with scope, then return shape, then the routing hint. No filler and nothing an agent needs is 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and flagging that details are a summary. It stops short of telling the agent where to go for full details of a component/validator, which is the one gap for a tool this broad.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in-schema (Bech32m examples, network enum with default). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already carries, so the 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 ('fetches the on-ledger state') plus explicit resource scope, enumerating every address family it covers (accounts, components, packages, resources, validators, pools). An agent can distinguish it from get_component_state, get_validator_state and inspect_address purely from the description.

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?

'For account token balances prefer get_account_balances' gives one explicit alternative with the condition that selects it. However, it is silent on the other heavily overlapping siblings (get_component_state, get_validator_state, get_nft_data, inspect_address), which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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