validate_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 checks validity but doesn't explain what 'valid' means (e.g., format, checksum, network-specific rules), whether it performs network checks, error handling, or response format. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details, making it easy 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 (validation with network and pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the validation criteria, what the output looks like (e.g., boolean, error details), or why pagination is included. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool 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 the schema fully documents the three parameters (address, network, itemsPerPage). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why 'itemsPerPage' is relevant for a validation tool or clarifying validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Check if an Algorand address is valid.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('Algorand address'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to perform similar validation functions, so it's not a full 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it relates to other tools like 'decode_address' or 'encode_address' that might handle address formatting. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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