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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates it. It does add genuine behavioral context by establishing that the data is a historical snapshot at the Olympia-to-Babylon migration boundary, which tells the agent the figures are frozen rather than live, but it says nothing about behavior for unknown addresses or missing accounts.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads the identity of the resource and then enumerates contents, the second covers input acceptance and the safety stance. Dense but well ordered, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does so thoroughly by listing every returned section. What remains missing is edge-case behavior (nonexistent or unmigrated address, truncation of large token lists) for a snapshot read whose payload is inherently variable.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the rdx1…/account_rdx1… acceptance and the 10-120 character bounds. The description's mention of dual address forms duplicates the schema rather than adding format, validation, or resolution semantics.

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 and resource and enumerates the exact payload: Babylon successor plus public key, XRD in liquid/staked/unstaking states, token balances, stakes per validator, activity stats and lifetime rewards. That makes the tool's scope unmistakable, though it never names which sibling (e.g. olympia_get_account_rewards or get_account_balances) to prefer for a narrower read.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the comprehensive Olympia-era lookup because of the 'as Olympia ended' framing, and it is told either address form is acceptable. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-a-sibling guidance and no exclusion or prerequisite statement.

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