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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful security trait: read-only, holds no key, and does not act as session key or guardian. It adds useful context for a blockchain-auth tool, though it omits any permission requirements or pagination/error behavior.

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?

Two well-formed sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the security note. Minor redundancy: 'The address is required' duplicates what the schema already enforces, but nothing is bloated.

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 return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is covered. Purpose plus read-only posture make it complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around edge cases.

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%, so the address parameter is already fully documented, and the single-parameter baseline sits at 3. The description only restates that the address is required, adding no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('See') and resource ('pluggable authenticators an address has registered'), names the underlying module (x/accountauth), and gives concrete examples (session keys, guardian thresholds). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_balance and get_miner_status.

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 description implies when this is useful (inspecting an address's registered authenticators) but never states it as guidance or points to alternatives. Since the sibling tools cover entirely different domains, there is no real ambiguity, so a bare 3 is warranted rather than lower.

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