get_base_account_guide

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 a guide, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned guide. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and provides examples, making it easy to understand quickly with zero waste.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter with full schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the purpose and hints at parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are needed for full understanding despite the simple schema.

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 mentions 'Base Account features like sponsored gas and batch transactions,' which aligns with the 'feature' parameter's enum values in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents the parameter well, so the description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing the parameter's purpose. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get guide') and resource ('Base Account features'), and it provides concrete examples of the features covered ('sponsored gas and batch transactions'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_base_deployment_guide' or 'get_debugging_guide', which might also involve guides but for different topics.

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, context for usage, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'get_base_deployment_guide' and 'get_debugging_guide', there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or application.

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