explain_account

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses read-only nature and precise RPC behavior (5 serial reads spaced ≥1100ms apart), plus lists all the data categories fetched, giving agents clear expectations of cost and time.

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?

Single sentence front-loads purpose, then bullet-like list of contents, followed by behavioral notes. No fluff, every word adds value.

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 complex tool with no output schema, description comprehensively lists all return fields (balance, key safety, hooks, trustlines, URITokens, activity, warnings) and notes read-only behavior. Adequate for an agent to understand output and side effects.

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 coverage is 50% – 'address' is described as 'r-address' in schema and 'network' has enum default. The description does not add further parameter details beyond what's in schema, missing opportunity to clarify format or validation, but the tool's purpose implies the address parameter is the target account.

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?

Clearly states it provides a plain-English account snapshot enumerating specific components (balance, key safety, hooks, trustlines, URITokens, activity) and distinguishes from numerous sibling tools like get_account_info or get_account_objects by emphasizing the one-call comprehensive overview.

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?

Describes usage context as a 'one-call' snapshot for human-readable overview and notes it is read-only with exact RPC count and spacing, implying a trade-off between comprehensive data and speed. However, does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.

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