get_account_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (code hash, storage usage, block height), which is useful, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but the description stops short of full behavioral transparency.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating return fields, but it is efficient.

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?

Given the simple read operation, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description adequately lists the key return fields. It does not explain every possible return value, but 'including' signals a non-exhaustive list, which is acceptable for an account info tool.

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% and the single parameter account_id is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'account information', and it enumerates the fields returned (code hash, storage usage, block height), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_account_balance or get_access_keys. However, it does not explicitly state what it is not or name an alternative, so it is clear but lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives like get_account_balance or get_access_keys, nor does it state prerequisites or appropriate contexts. An agent has to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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