api_indexer_lookup_account_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get account assets' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of pagination behavior (implied by 'nextToken' and 'itemsPerPage'), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes an 'asset' in the response. This leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the Algorand ecosystem, what 'assets' refers to, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a lookup tool with multiple parameters and sibling overlaps, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 6 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'limit' interacts with 'itemsPerPage') or provide examples. 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 'Get account assets' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'api_indexer_lookup_account_assets'. While it indicates a read operation on assets for an account, it lacks specificity about what 'assets' means in this context (e.g., Algorand Standard Assets) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_asset_balances' or 'wallet_get_assets'.

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 sibling tools dealing with assets, accounts, and lookups, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions from tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_asset_balances' or 'api_algod_get_account_asset_info'.

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