get_ids_owned_by

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get all...' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't state whether the result is an array, whether empty results are possible, or any error/edge-case behavior. There is no added context beyond the core purpose.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no wasted text or redundant 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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is adequate but minimal. There is no output schema, so the return format (e.g., an array of token IDs) is only implicit. It also omits any mention of the StarGate contract or chain, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting this 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'address' is described in the schema. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond 'owned by an address,' so it neither compensates nor hinders. The 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Get all StarGate NFT token IDs') and the target resource ('owned by an address'). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like nft_get_owned_tokens by specifying the StarGate NFT collection.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or differences between this and similar ownership-checking tools such as nft_check_ownership or nft_get_owned_tokens.

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