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

Despite strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: read_ok=false means the result is unreliable rather than empty, and deprecated managers are listed separately. Also includes Merkl claim state and whether reward tokens need registering, going beyond annotation-provided safety traits.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct role: purpose, output contents, deprecated handling, and error flag. No fluff, but slightly longer than minimal. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values fully, yet it covers key categories (active managers, intents, Merkl state) and the read_ok reliability flag. It also cross-references write tools for next steps. A minor gap: no explicit distinction from read_asset_manager_intents, which would improve completeness.

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% for both parameters (chain_id, account_address) with descriptions already. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only uses 'account' contextually. 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read which asset managers are currently enabled on an account, with their decoded on-chain configuration.' It lists concrete output fields and distinguishes itself from siblings by describing deprecated managers separately and naming the write tools used to clear them.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for handling deprecated managers: 'pass their addresses to write_account_automations_delta to clear them, or run write_account_automations which disables them as part of the save.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with read_asset_manager_intents.

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