get_account

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the scope of returned data (balance, resources, permissions, frozen balance, votes), which is not present in annotations. No behavioral contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates key content without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a helpful summary of returned fields, making the tool's behavior clear. It is concise but sufficiently complete for a simple read-only getter, though it omits a few potential fields (e.g., address, energy) that might be expected in 'full account information'.

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 fully describes both parameters (address and network) with 100% coverage. The description does not mention parameters, but the schema already provides complete semantic information, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'full account information', explicitly listing key components (balance, resources, permissions, frozen balance, votes). This distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_account_balance or get_account_resource.

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 word 'full' implies this is the comprehensive option versus more specific sibling tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool or that more specific tools exist for narrower queries. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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