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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns source code formatted as a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. It also mentions deployability and extensibility. This goes beyond basic 'generate contract' and provides useful operational details, though it does not cover potential errors or prerequisites.

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?

The description is concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph clarifies the return format and side effects. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'custom smart contract' and 'account' explanation), but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded without excessive wordiness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential missing pieces: it states the return format (Markdown code block) and non-disk-write behavior. The schema covers parameter meanings. However, it does not address edge cases or limitations, and it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling code generators, leaving some contextual ambiguity. Still, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Make' and the resource 'a custom smart contract that represents an account'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on account contracts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like cairo-custom or cairo-multisig. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand this generates account contract source code.

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?

The description provides context by explaining that an account is a special type of contract for validating and executing transactions, which implies when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as cairo-multisig or cairo-governor, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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