audit_account_remarks

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: pagination via marker, 20-page cap with truncated flag, and RPC reads. It implies read-only nature but does not explicitly state safety. Overall good 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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the action and key features. Technical details are present but not excessive. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 of reading remarks from multiple objects and the existence of an output schema, the description covers main behaviors like pagination and decoding. However, it misses error conditions and network selection context, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description has 0% schema coverage and fails to explain the network parameter or the account parameter beyond implicit context. It references a marker concept that is not a parameter, causing potential confusion. Compensation is insufficient.

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 reads Remarks attached to an account's owned ledger objects, with hex-to-text decoding and immutable flag surfacing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_account_hooks by focusing on Remarks and object annotations.

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 a use case (dynamic-NFT patterns and object annotations) but does not specify when not to use or offer alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage given the unique purpose.

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