Get AAs By Base AAs

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those hints: this is a raw hub read, the server serves both Obyte networks, the default is mainnet, and the agent should confirm the intended network with the user when it is not explicit. This is meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 short and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the network paragraph is necessary due to the dual-network server behavior. There is no filler or repetition 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?

For a read-only tool with strong annotations, this is nearly complete: it states what is returned, the input scope, and the important network behavior. The main gaps are the lack of an output schema and a missing explicit note about requiring one of base_aa or base_aas, but these are minor for this raw read.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic load. It explains the network parameter's allowed values, default, and confirmation requirement, and clarifies that base AAs can be provided as a single value or a list up to 20. It does not fully spell out whether base_aa and base_aas are mutually exclusive, but it still adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 operation: 'Returns AAs derived from one base AA or up to 20 base AAs' and labels itself a 'Raw hub read.' This identifies the specific resource and action. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, so it misses the top 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 'Raw hub read' label and the description of what is returned imply when this tool is appropriate. The network guidance adds useful calling context, but there is no explicit direction about when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_aa_responses or execute_getter, and no stated exclusions.

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