ton_validate_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation is offline with no network call (no side effects, idempotent) and that validation uses a real CRC check rather than a superficial pattern match. It does not say how invalid input is reported, which is the main remaining gap for a validation tool.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action, the accepted input forms, the offline constraint, and the return contents. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return shape (format, normalized raw form, bounceable/testnet flags), which is what an agent needs to consume the result. The only omission is error/invalid-address behavior, a minor gap for a single-parameter offline 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the raw (0:…) and friendly (EQ…/UQ…) forms. The description restates that same raw/friendly distinction without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (validate, normalize) and the exact resource (a TON address in raw or friendly form), plus the distinguishing constraint that it works offline. An agent can tell it apart from the network-fetching siblings (ton_get_*, ton_resolve_dns) immediately.

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?

'Offline — No network call' implies the usage context (use this to check/convert an address without hitting the chain), which is genuinely useful framing against network siblings. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over e.g. ton_resolve_dns or what to do if validation fails, so the guidance stays implied rather than stated.

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