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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('summary of each account (address, name)') and what is deliberately NOT returned (health factor, collateral, debt). This manages agent expectations about response richness. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the core action is front-loaded, the return shape follows, and the sibling routing closes it. Every sentence earns its place, and no information is duplicated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Complete for a simple read-only list tool: annotations carry the safety profile, an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation, and the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and where to go for richer data. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with both wallet_address ('Wallet address to list accounts for') and chain_id (with explicit chain IDs and default 8453) already documented. The description reinforces 'wallet address' but adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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: 'List all Arcadia accounts owned by a wallet address', and discloses the exact scope of what is returned ('summary of each account (address, name)'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling read_account_info, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Call read_account_info with a specific account_address for full details like health factor, collateral, and debt.' This tells the agent when to stop at this tool (summary needs) versus when to escalate (full detail needs), leaving nothing to inference.

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