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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds important context: it requires an active session, explains the difference between signature and api-key sessions, states 'Read-only; does not submit orders or change chain state,' and notes that the balance is live and can change within seconds after deposits or orders. This provides behavioral insight beyond what annotations offer.

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 well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then details prerequisites, authentication, what the tool returns, usage guidance, and behavioral notes. Each sentence adds value. It is slightly long but not verbose; every piece of information is useful for correct invocation.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (signaled in context), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisites, authentication method, typical use cases, and safety (read-only). It also addresses state freshness. No gaps are evident.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly doesn't mention parameters because there are none. It does mention the requirement of a session but that is not a parameter; it's a condition for use, which 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('TronSave internal account profile'), and lists exactly what fields are returned (represent address, deposit address, balance in SUN). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'This is the api-key internal account, not the on-chain wallet.' This differentiates it from other tools like tronsave_get_deposit_address or on-chain wallet lookups.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user needs their linked address, deposit address, or internal balance.' It also provides context: requires a logged-in session from tronsave_login and instructions for including the mcp-session-id header. While it doesn't list specific alternatives to avoid, it clearly sets the scope and prerequisites.

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