api_haystack_needs_optin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a boolean (true/false) indicating opt-in necessity, specifies that it always returns false for ALGO (ASA 0), and clarifies its read-only nature through the 'check' verb. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific behavioral details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage context effectively. However, it doesn't detail the return format beyond 'true/false' or address potential edge cases, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'address' and 'assetId' or clarifying 'itemsPerPage' usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('Algorand address'), and condition ('needs to opt into an asset before swapping'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wallet_optin_asset' by focusing on pre-swap verification rather than performing the opt-in action.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use before executing a swap to determine if wallet_optin_asset should be called first.' It names the alternative tool ('wallet_optin_asset') and specifies when to use it, offering clear context for decision-making.

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