api_indexer_lookup_account_app_local_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite the 'itemsPerPage' parameter), error conditions, or what format the 'local states' data returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 maximally concise - a single clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of efficient communication within the constraints of minimal content.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'account application local states' are conceptually, what data format to expect, whether results are paginated (implied by itemsPerPage but not stated), or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of blockchain data retrieval and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 already fully documents all three parameters (address, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'account application local states' are, how they relate to the address parameter, or provide context for the network selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation 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 resource ('account application local states'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_account_assets' or 'api_indexer_lookup_account_created_applications' - all appear to retrieve different types of account-related data without clear distinction in the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar 'api_indexer_lookup_account_*' tools available, there's no indication of what distinguishes 'local states' from 'assets', 'created applications', or other account data retrievals. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or alternative suggestions are mentioned.

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