hive_account

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the five-day mana regeneration window, that the mana value is a node-time estimate rather than exact, that output is restricted ('no keys, balances or JSON metadata'), and that it costs exactly one bounded condenser_api.get_accounts call. That is genuine disclosure beyond structured fields, missing only error/staleness edge 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?

Four tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the mana caveat and output scope each carry weight. Slightly dense and telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, return-field exclusions, the computed-value caveat, and call cost. The remaining gap is the account identifier format, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 compensate and it only partly does: 'one explicit Hive account' usefully signals a single required identifier rather than a list or wildcard. It says nothing about the account name format (lowercase, 3-16 chars, dotted subaccounts) that the schema pattern enforces.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read one explicit Hive account's public profile counters and current voting mana.' The word 'current' plus 'one explicit' implicitly distinguishes it from hive_account_history and hive_transaction, but it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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 only implied: 'current' counters suggest a snapshot use case, contrasting with the history sibling. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over hive_account_history or hive_transaction, and no mention of failure behavior for unknown accounts.

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