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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'this returns an opaque encrypted blob, NOT a cleartext balance. Only the wallet holding the spend key can decrypt it. Do NOT present the encrypted bytes as a balance.' This is valuable context that the readOnlyHint annotation alone does not convey. It also documents the output structure, further enhancing transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, CRITICAL warning, when to call, input requirements, and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value. The formatting uses headers and capitals effectively to guide the agent without excessive verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately documents the output shape: '{ status, registration, balance (encrypted blob), ... }' and explains the encrypted nature. It covers purpose, behavior, usage context, input constraints, and output, making it fully self-sufficient. The annotations further support the read-only, non-destructive nature, so no gaps remain.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema by highlighting 'address MUST start with dero1/deto1', 'topoheight MUST be an integer; use -1 for latest chain tip', and 'scid optional'. However, it adds little new semantic information beyond what the schema already states; it mostly re-emphasizes criticality rather than introducing new details.

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 specific action: 'Get the ENCRYPTED balance blob for a DERO address at a topo height via DERO.GetEncryptedBalance.' It explicitly differentiates this from a cleartext balance, distinguishing it from potential sibling balance-related tools. The verb+resource pair is precise and unambiguous.

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 an explicit 'When to call' section: 'when verifying that an address has on-chain encrypted state... or as a sub-step in another tool.' It also advises referencing dero_docs_search for user understanding. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to call or name alternative tools for cleartext balance retrieval, so it misses the full when/when-not/alternatives combination.

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