api_indexer_lookup_application_boxes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get all application boxes' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated (hinted by 'itemsPerPage' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., across all networks or per network). The description lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 no wasted words. However, it's overly terse and under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, missing opportunities to add necessary context. While structurally simple, it prioritizes brevity over clarity.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'application boxes' are, the tool's behavior (e.g., pagination, network defaults), or return values. For a lookup tool in a crowded sibling set, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'maxBoxes' interacts with 'itemsPerPage'), default behaviors, or semantic nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 all application boxes' restates the tool name 'api_indexer_lookup_application_boxes' without adding specificity. It uses the verb 'Get' which matches 'lookup', but doesn't clarify what 'application boxes' are or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'api_algod_get_application_boxes' or 'api_indexer_lookup_application_box' (singular). The purpose is tautological rather than informative.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to similar tools like 'api_algod_get_application_boxes' (which might be for different networks or data sources). Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for choosing this tool appropriately.

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