Get Directory entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the return shape, that a miss can surface as either an empty object or a 404, and that a Directory miss doesn't imply the account doesn't exist on-chain. It doesn't mention whether a 404 raises an error in the client, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the not-found caveat — the most decision-relevant nuance. Nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the two empty-result forms, which is enough for an agent to interpret a response. A slightly fuller field list or note on error-vs-empty convention would make it complete.

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 single 'address' parameter already documents the G+55 base32 format with a regex pattern. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Look up') and a precisely scoped resource ('one Stellar account in the Directory'), plus what the response contains (name, domain, tags). The singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with list_directory_entries, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular-account framing and the hint that a missing account 'may still exist on-chain' suggests a fallback path, but the description never explicitly says when to pick this over list_directory_entries or the blocked-domain tools.

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