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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so 'Read-only' is repeat credit; the real value is the disclosure of what the report contains: the controller's roles, its timed-recovery delay, and any recovery or badge-withdrawal attempt in flight. That is substantive behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema or annotation alone.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core answer (who controls the account) before drilling into the badge/controller case. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly heavy to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: control type, badge placement (Access Controller vs. loose), controller roles, recovery delay, and in-flight recovery/withdrawal attempts. For a two-parameter read tool this is complete.

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% with only two parameters (address, network), both fully documented in the schema including the mainnet/stokenet enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it 'reads from the ledger who actually controls a Radix account' (key/seed phrase vs. account owner badge). The scope is precise enough to separate it from generic siblings like inspect_address, lookup_entity, or get_component_state, which do not describe control/recovery posture.

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 implied by the domain (checking how an account is protected), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative named, e.g. it never says 'use inspect_address for general account metadata' or 'use get_component_state for the controller component itself.'

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