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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the one-vault-per-account/resource invariant and the conditional extra NFT-id output for non-fungibles. It omits what happens when the account does not hold the resource, but that is a modest gap for a read-only lookup.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by the invariant and the downstream consumers. Every sentence carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for the main case (vault address) and the conditional case (NFT ids). It is complete enough to call correctly; only the not-found/empty behavior and any pagination or size caveats on NFT ids are unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents account, resource, and the network enum and its default. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 (resolves) and resource (internal vault address holding a resource in an account), and uniquely identifies itself among siblings — no other tool in the list resolves a vault address. It also adds scope detail (exactly one vault per account/resource) and a secondary output (NFT ids for non-fungibles).

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 context: it identifies the target a recall/freeze needs and names the four manifest templates that consume its output (recall-token / recall-nft / freeze-vault / unfreeze-vault). It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative tool, but there is no obvious competing sibling for this lookup.

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