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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering most behavioral aspects. The description adds minimal extra by specifying the output contains UTXO and tx counts, which is useful but not substantial beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary verbiage but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning it is a summary.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return structure (though output schema exists) or when to prefer this over related tools. It could be more complete given the sibling context.

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 50%, with the 'address' parameter lacking description in the schema and the description not compensating. The 'network' parameter is well-documented in the schema (enum, defaults, aliases), so no additional value from description. Overall, the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states it returns an address summary with UTXO and transaction counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_address_transactions, which likely returns full transaction data. Verb and resource are implied and obvious.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_address_transactions or get_tx_status. The description does not mention usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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