arc200_has_allowance

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

The description labels this as a 'read' operation and specifies the check condition (box present / non-zero). However, it does not explain the return format (likely boolean) or any edge-case behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it partially meets it.

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 concise sentence and front-loaded with the core behavior. The 'ulujs dual-schema read' phrase adds some jargon but does not overwhelm. It earns a 4 for efficient structure.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description should clarify return values and safety. It hints at a boolean check but does not explicitly state the return type. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but with 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 schema already covers owner and spender as addresses, and network/appId are documented. The description only names the expected parameters in a function signature, adding minimal semantic detail beyond the schema. With 75% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 checks whether an allowance box is present and non-zero for a given owner/spender pair. This distinguishes it from sibling arc200_allowance which would return the allowance value itself.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrasing 'hasAllowance' and the distinction from allowance tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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