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

It discloses that the tool only builds (does not send) a transaction, that the address is predicted deterministically via CREATE2, and how account_version/creditor change the resulting account type. These traits go well beyond the annotations, which only indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness.

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 entire behavioral and semantic payload is delivered in two tight sentences with front-loaded purpose and no filler. Version/creditor rules are compressed into clear conditional clauses.

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?

Given five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core decision (version/creditor), the return behavior (predicted CREATE2 address), and the transaction nature (unsigned, to be signed/sent elsewhere). Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real algorithmic meaning beyond the schema by explaining account_version branching (3 → V3 margin; 0r 4 → V4 spot) and the creditor being ignored for V4, which directly affects how an agent fills parameters.

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 names a concrete operation—'Build an unsigned transaction to create a new Arcadia account via the Factory contract'—and the create-vs-modify frame separates it from every write_account_* sibling. The account-version semantics make the resource behavior unmistakable.

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 intended use is implicit in 'create a new account'—an agent can tell this is the account-creation step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named, so it does not fully meet the 4-level bar for usage direction.

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