TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the declarative/idempotent pattern and differential purchasing (only missing amounts), but omits crucial mutation details like failure modes, transaction confirmation timing, cost attribution, or return structure.

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?

Three efficient sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with pattern ('Declarative'), followed by mechanism ('Checks... purchases'), and prerequisite ('Auth required'). Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter blockchain mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the provisioning logic but lacks disclosure around return values, error states, or asynchronous completion behavior that would help an agent handle the response correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage (target_address, energy_minimum, bandwidth_minimum, duration_sec), establishing baseline 3. The description mentions 'target address' and implies the minimums are thresholds, but adds no additional syntax guidance, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specifies 'Declarative resource provisioning' and clarifies the mechanism ('Checks current resources... purchases only what is missing'), distinguishing it from simple check or buy operations. It identifies the resource type (energy/bandwidth implied by parameters) and action, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling contrasts like check_address_resources.

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?

States 'Auth required' indicating a prerequisite, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g., when to use check_address_resources vs this tool) or when not to use (e.g., insufficient TRX balance scenarios).

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