Hedera: hederaAccountIdToEvmAddress

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operation; description adds that it queries a mirror node and returns either an alias or auto-generated EVM address. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence with clear verb 'Resolve', direct object, and concise details. No redundant 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 simple single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, and result type. It lacks mention of error conditions or edge cases, but is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 single parameter 'address' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of '0.0.x' and realm-shard-num form adds marginal value, but the schema already provides an example. Baseline is 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 clearly states the tool resolves a Hedera account ID to an EVM address, specifying input format '0.0.x' and output type (alias or auto-generated EVM address). It distinguishes from sibling hederaContractIdToEvmAddress by focusing on accounts.

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 converting Hedera account IDs to EVM addresses but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like hederaContractIdToEvmAddress or exclusions (e.g., not for contract IDs).

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