iota_objects_by_owner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'objects' specifically refers to (tokens, NFTs, contracts). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration - every word serves the purpose of stating what the tool does.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'objects' means in this context, what format results will be in, whether there are pagination considerations, or any error handling. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.

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 mentions 'by an address' which aligns with the 'address' parameter, but adds no semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema fully describes both parameters, so the description meets the baseline without adding meaningful parameter insights.

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 action ('List') and resource ('objects owned by an address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'iota_object' or 'iota_coins' that might also retrieve object information, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'iota_object' (singular) and 'iota_coins' (specific type), there's no indication whether this tool is for general object listing, filtered queries, or other use cases. The lack of context leaves the agent guessing.

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