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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds explicit clarification that nothing is deactivated or closed, reinforcing the read-only nature beyond what annotations state. It also notes in the parameter schema that no connection or signature is involved, which adds transparency about side-effect-free behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outputs, followed by a brief note on non-mutability. No filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 well-documented parameter, the description covers all necessary information: what it returns (counts and rent), and that it does not modify state. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear enumeration of result categories.

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% and the parameter description already explains the address is a base58 public key and that it's public data only. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('address lookup tables a Solana wallet owns'), and details the exact outputs (counts ready to close, cooling down, active, and gross rent per group). This clearly differentiates it from sibling check_* tools that focus on other aspects like approvals or frozen tokens.

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 implies when to use it (when needing lookup table status) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state conditions for when not to use it. It lacks comparison to sibling tools like check_closable_programs, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and purpose.

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