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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them. It adds value by explicitly stating 'Nothing is recovered' and clarifying that the calculation is 'net of fees', which tells the agent the tool does not perform an actual reclaim and that fees are factored in. The phrase 'Public data only; no connection or signature is involved' in the schema also supports the no-side-effects behavior, but the main description reinforces it.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb, but the second clause 'and the SOL recovering them returns net of fees' is grammatically tangled and ambiguous. The meaning can be inferred, but it would be clearer as 'and reports the SOL that recovering them would return, net of fees.' 'Nothing is recovered' is a useful clarifying sentence, so the structure is adequate but not polished.

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 simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it reads, what it computes, and that no recovery action is taken. It does not describe the return format, but that is not required given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation. The main gap is the lack of usage differentiation from sibling tools.

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%: the only parameter, address, is fully described as a base58 public key and notes that it is public data requiring no connection or signature. The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics, but it does not need to because the schema already provides complete meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('program buffer accounts left behind by a Solana wallet's failed or interrupted program deploys'), and it states the calculated result (SOL recovering them net of fees). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like check_reclaimable_rent and check_closable_programs, which target different resource types. 'Nothing is recovered' removes ambiguity about the tool being purely informational.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not name any sibling tools. The context implies a use case (failed deploys), but there is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to check_reclaimable_rent or check_closable_programs. The agent is left to infer selection criteria from the tool name.

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