arc200_allowance

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavior such as read-only nature, return values, and error handling. It only mentions 'base units', which is a small detail but does not clarify whether this is a safe query or what happens if no allowance exists.

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 extremely short and contains no superfluous words. Each phrase, including 'in base units', adds some information, but the overall brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the allowance represents and any edge cases. It only states the units, leaving the return type and behavior unspecified. Given the availability of sibling tools, this description is insufficient for an AI agent to confidently invoke it.

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 schema already describes appId, owner, and network (75% coverage). The description adds no information about parameters beyond listing owner and spender, which is redundant with the schema. It does not clarify parameter semantics or provide additional context.

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 identifies the resource (ARC-200 allowance) and scope (owner, spender, base units) but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming specific parameters, but the phrasing is more like a function signature than a statement of purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arc200_has_allowance or arc200_balance_of. The description does not mention any prerequisites or contrasting use cases.

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