api_indexer_lookup_account_created_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite the 'itemsPerPage' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the applications are returned in. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches potentially large datasets.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup tool and is perfectly front-loaded.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'applications' are in this context (Algorand smart contracts?), what data is returned, or how pagination works despite having an 'itemsPerPage' parameter. The agent would be left guessing about the tool's behavior and output format.

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. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'applications' means in this context or provide examples). 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 'Get applications created by this account' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('applications created by this account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_account_app_local_states' or 'api_indexer_search_for_applications', which prevents a perfect score.

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 numerous sibling tools that also deal with applications and accounts (e.g., 'api_indexer_lookup_applications', 'api_indexer_search_for_applications'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool for the 'created by' use case.

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