get_account_trc20_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the data source (TronGrid indexed data), the limitation (only contract addresses and raw balances, no metadata), and pointing to a sibling for richer data. This is strong but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of pagination or formatting).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. The first sentence states what it does; the second clarifies the limitation and provides the alternative. There is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, this description is complete enough for agent selection and invocation. It communicates scope ('all'), source ('TronGrid indexed data'), output limitation (raw balances only), and directs to the alternative for detailed info. No output schema exists, but the description adequately sets expectations for return content.

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 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden of parameter semantics, and the description's mention of 'raw balances' is more about output than parameters.

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 plus resource ('Get all TRC20 token balances for an account') and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_token_balance by stating it returns all balances without token metadata. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easy to differentiate.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns and what it does NOT return, then directs users to get_token_balance when detailed token information is needed. This provides a clear when-to-use vs alternative guidance in just two sentences.

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