api_algod_get_account_application_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward query tool.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. With no annotations to compensate, it's incomplete for safe and effective use by an agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (address, appId, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('Get') and target ('account-specific application information from algod'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'api_algod_get_account_info' by specifying 'application' focus, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_account_app_local_states'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available for querying account and application data (e.g., 'api_indexer_lookup_account_app_local_states', 'api_algod_get_application_by_id'), the description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons.

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