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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds substantial context the annotation does not: the key vs owner-badge distinction, the Access Controller case, roles, factor counts for signing/recovery, timed-recovery delay, and in-flight recovery/badge-withdrawal attempts.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the core determination before branching into badge/controller detail, and closing with the read-only guarantee. Slightly run-on, but every sentence carries substantive information.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does thoroughly: control type, controller presence, roles, factor thresholds, recovery delay, and pending attempts. An agent can predict the response without further documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with address format and network enum already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no address formats, no network semantics), 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 (reads) plus the exact resource and concept it resolves: who controls a Radix account – key vs owner badge – and what else it reports. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspect_address, get_account_balances, or lookup_entity.

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 content (check how an account is protected, controller roles, recovery status), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over inspect_address or lookup_entity, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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