accounts / eligibility

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds real value by clarifying that a positive result is not an authorization decision ('not an access grant'), which is a behavioral claim annotations cannot express. It still omits what happens when no rules are configured and what the result looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and a valuable disambiguating caveat at the end. No filler, though the terseness comes partly at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 tool that evaluates eligibility with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description never says what is returned (boolean, reasons, rule set used), what 'explicitly configured' means, or how missing configuration is handled. That is a substantial gap for an agent deciding whether its result can be acted on.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the schema contributes nothing beyond types. The description only indirectly implies a wallet and a chain ('on-chain balances'), with no format, validation, or scoping guidance for chain_id or wallet to compensate.

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 verb (check) and resource (on-chain balances vs. configured Orchard root/LP rules) are stated, so it is more than a restatement of the name. However, the domain terms 'Orchard root/LP rules' are unexplained and the description does not differentiate it from the nearby accounts.balances or policy.evaluate siblings.

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 only usage signal is the negative caveat 'not an access grant', which tells the agent what not to conclude rather than when to call this versus accounts.balances (raw balances) or policy.evaluate (policy check). No preconditions, no exclusions, no named alternative.

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