Look up ledger agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description usefully discloses what the record contains (status, problems, wallets) and that the book carries WSCDO/USDC/test-USDC balances and entries, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error 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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the primary record first, then the optional book. Parentheticals are dense but every clause adds content; no wasted filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and does list the record's fields (status, problems, wallets) and book contents. It leaves the address format and the meaning of 'problems' unstated, but is largely sufficient for a simple read tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It conveys that the book is optional (mapping to includeBook), but 'address' is never explained and the 'optionally' phrasing is loose given includeBook defaults to true.

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 a specific resource — one agent's Agent Ledger record — and enumerates its contents (status, problems, wallets) plus the optional book. The singular 'One agent's' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling ledger_list_agents, but it never names that sibling or states a verb explicitly.

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 is implied by the singular framing ('One agent's') and the required address, suggesting a single-agent lookup versus the list variant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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