get_account_resource

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact resource categories returned, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not introduce any contradictions or unexplained side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a clear list of included details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only resource getter with two parameters, the description adequately covers the return content (energy, bandwidth, frozen balance, delegation info) despite lacking an output schema. It could be more comprehensive about the network parameter or response structure, but it is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters (address and network). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the parameters, earning the baseline score 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account resource details') and enumerates concrete content: energy, bandwidth, frozen balance, and delegation info. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_account, get_account_net, and get_delegated_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 description implies usage for retrieving resource-related details but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. While the content list hints at its purpose, it lacks explicit 'use this when' guidance.

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