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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=falseholistically. The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds the useful context that closure is permanent, but it does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or any edge cases in program enumeration.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key safety note about permanence. Every word contributes meaning; there is no repetition or 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly communicates what the tool reads, why it is safe to rely on, and what information the agent can expect out of the call.

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 fully describes the single address parameter, including that it is a base58 public key and that only public data is accessed, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the schema the primary source of parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('upgradeable programs a Solana wallet holds the upgrade authority for'), and the data returned ('gross rent their bytecode accounts hold'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings such as check_reclaimable_rent and list_upgrades.

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 gives context that closing a program is permanent and that this tool only reads, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name or contrast sibling tools, so an agent is left to infer usage from the title and purpose.

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