get_approved_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety behavior. The description adds little beyond the annotations, simply restating the query behavior without further details like error conditions or result format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that imparts both the purpose and the key usage instruction without any filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 query tool, the description adequately explains the input (full transaction JSON) and the output (list of accounts), even without an output schema. It could specify more about the returned accounts (e.g., format or ordering), but the core information needed to invoke the tool is present.

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%; both 'network' and 'transaction' have descriptive text. The description's phrase 'Pass the full transaction JSON object' reinforces the schema's parameter description but does not add meaningfully new semantics beyond what's already in the input schema.

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 'Query' and a clear resource 'the list of accounts that have signed a given transaction', which precisely identifies the tool's function. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools, as none explicitly mention an approved list of signers.

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 instruction 'Pass the full transaction JSON object' gives a direct usage input requirement but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The usage is implied by the clarity of the purpose, but there is no explicit context or alternative naming.

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