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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: unresolved names yield an 'unresolved' status rather than a fabricated balance, and amounts come back as raw integers with a decimal formatting. It omits pagination/explorer-failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then address handling, then return format, then the advisory disclaimer. The price/APY sentence is longer than strictly needed but serves a deliberate guardrail purpose; no sentence is pure 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains that results are raw integers plus a decimal rendering and what happens on unresolved input. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has what it needs; only edge behavior on explorer/token-lookup failures is unaddressed.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the address must be checksummed or all-lowercase hex and that QIE IDs resolve only on mainnet. The network and include_tokens semantics are left entirely to the schema, which already handles them well.

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 and resource ('Read the native QIE balance and known token balances for an address') plus the exact chains supported (1990/1983), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from qie_get_tx_status or qie_list_tokens without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use for balance reads on mainnet or testnet, accepts hex or a QIE ID on mainnet, and explicitly declines price/APY/yield questions. It also notes that QIE-ID resolution mirrors qie_resolve_name, which routes the agent correctly, though it never states an explicit 'use X instead when' exclusion for the sibling tools.

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