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

The annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints: it specifies that the operation builds an unsigned transaction rather than sending one, explains version-dependent behavior and creditor ignoring, and notes deterministic CREATE2 address prediction. It stops short of covering auth requirements or failure cases.

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 three dense sentences with zero wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, followed by version semantics and the return-value note.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, version distinctions, and deterministic address return. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly connect this unsigned transaction to the dev_send tool or mention prerequisite wallet state.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description still adds substantial meaning: account_version 3 maps to a V3 margin account, 0 or 4 maps to a V4 spot account, and creditor is ignored for V4. This clarifies parameter interactions beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 gives a precise verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to create a new Arcadia account via the Factory contract.' It also clarifies the account-creation variants, making it distinguishable from sibling write_account_* tools that deposit, withdraw, or otherwise mutate an existing account.

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?

It explains how account_version selects between V3 margin and V4 spot accounts, which is useful decision guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dev_send or read_wallet_accounts, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing wallet or approval before creation.

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