get_account_net

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavior, only clarifying that 'net' refers to bandwidth. It does not discuss return format, pagination, or other runtime behavior, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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, focused sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every word adds value.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and complete schema, the description is adequate. It explains the core purpose, and the schema covers parameters. However, it could benefit from mentioning that it focuses specifically on bandwidth vs. energy, and could hint at the return structure, but this is not critical for a low-complexity tool.

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 100%, with each parameter (address and network) already described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the word 'net' clarifying bandwidth, which is useful but not substantial. Baseline 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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'bandwidth (net) resource information' for an account. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_account_resource or get_bandwidth_prices, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_account_resource or get_account_balance. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.

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