radiant_check_token_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only access check and names the relevant contract pattern, but it does not disclose the response shape, whether the result is a boolean, or what happens when the balance is insufficient.

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, well-structured sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the contract-pattern qualifier appended. It contains no filler, redundancy, or restatement of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return value or side-effect profile explicitly. An agent can infer the behavior from 'check if', but the exact response semantics remain implicit.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the access-control context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete verb ('check'), a subject ('address'), a condition ('holds sufficient Glyph tokens'), and an objective ('access a gated service'). The TokenGatedService contract pattern and the notion of 'sufficient' distinguish this from simple balance or UTXO queries.

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 implies the intended use: determining whether an address can access a gated service based on a token balance threshold. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like radiant_get_token_balance or radiant_get_token_utxos, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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