arc72_is_approved_for_all

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what it returns (boolean), or any side effects. It only names the operation, providing zero transparency about system 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 very short but under-specified. It is neither front-loaded with key information nor adequately elaborated; it merely restates the function signature. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by adding necessary context.

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 read query with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not state the return format, network usage, or relationship to other ARC-72 tools. The schema provides some parameter details, but the description leaves the tool's overall behavior and invocation context largely unclear.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema: it echoes 'owner' and 'operator' without explaining their roles. Schema coverage is 75%, but the operator parameter lacks an explicit description, and the description does not compensate by explaining that owner is the asset owner and operator is the address being checked.

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 'ARC-72 isApprovedForAll(owner, operator)' simply restates the tool name and parameter signature without explaining what the function does. It lacks a plain-language verb and resource, such as 'Checks whether an operator is approved to manage all assets for an owner.'

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 arc72_get_approved or arc72_set_approval_for_all_txn. The description gives no context about its role in the ARC-72 query family, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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