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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'balance and state' but does not clarify what 'state' includes (e.g., active/frozen, code hash, timestamps), nor does it disclose potential rate limits, error conditions, or response shape. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 a single concise phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key nouns ('balance and state') and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. The only shortcoming is that it may be too terse to fully explain the tool, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), so the description need not be extensive. However, it leaves ambiguity around what 'state' encompasses and gives no expectation of the return structure. For a read-only wallet info tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in explaining the 'state' portion.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description ('TON wallet address'). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's resource: TON wallet balance and state, scoped by address. It implies a read operation (get wallet info) and distinguishes from sibling tools like ton_transactions, which focus on transaction history. However, it lacks an explicit verb, so it's not maximally specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or scenarios where wallet info is needed over other TON tools. The usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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