get_account_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the response payload categories, which is genuinely useful. It does not state that the operation is read-only (only implied by 'Get'), nor what happens for an unknown address, whether lookups are rate-limited or permissioned, or whether both parameters can be passed together — meaningful gaps for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, return contents, then the addressing hint and sibling alternative. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned data categories, so an agent can reason about results. The remaining hole is parameter behavior (address vs identifier, both/neither cases) plus any precondition or failure-mode context, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0% and neither parameter has a description, so the description must compensate; it does partially by naming both inputs and giving a format hint for 'address' (0x...). It never explains what an 'identifier' is, how it differs from an address, or the precedence when both are supplied, leaving half the parameter surface underspecified.

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 and resource ('Get account information') and enumerates the returned payload (account details, relationships/claims, financial positions, associated atoms), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It also names a sibling, search_atoms, and the condition under which that sibling is preferred, which separates it from the other account-oriented tools in the list.

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?

Gives a clear usage hint ('Works best with wallet addresses (0x...)') and an explicit alternative for ENS data ('search_atoms provides richer relationship discovery'). It stops short of saying when to use 'identifier' instead of 'address' or what happens when both/neither are supplied, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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