get_delegated_resource_account_index_v2

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the exact content of the index (incoming and outgoing delegation), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions detected.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose and key details. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the returned index contains, which addresses the absence of an output schema. It does not mention potential edge cases or pagination, but those are not critical for this straightforward read operation.

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 covers both parameters (address and network) with descriptions at 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 tool's function: retrieving the delegated resource account index for an address under Stake 2.0. It also specifies the two directions (who delegated to this address and who this address delegated to), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_delegated_resource_index or get_delegated_resource_v2.

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 gives clear context by mentioning 'under Stake 2.0', which helps the agent know when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, despite the presence of similar sibling tools.

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