get_application_address

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. It states the tool retrieves an address but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what network it queries by default, or how pagination works with 'itemsPerPage'. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste: 'Get the address for a given application ID'. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the address represents (e.g., creator address, escrow address), how pagination affects results, or what the return format is. For a tool in a crowded namespace with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 parameters (appId, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'appId' is required, which is already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Get the address for a given application ID'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('address'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_algod_get_application_by_id' or 'api_indexer_lookup_applications', which might retrieve similar application-related data.

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 related to applications and addresses (e.g., 'api_algod_get_account_application_info', 'api_indexer_lookup_account_created_applications'), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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