sui_address_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the data returned (balance, 12 owned objects, 10 transactions) and that it's a combined read. However, it lacks details on error handling, edge cases (e.g., invalid address), or rate limits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the function concisely, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description adequately covers output (balance, objects, transactions with limits) and compares to alternatives. Without an output schema, it explains what to expect. Slight room for improvement on output structure but very good overall.

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 50% (only network has description). The tool description mentions 'address' but does not add format or additional constraints beyond the schema. It provides minimal added meaning, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 tool performs a one-shot relational read for an address, providing balance, owned objects (first 12), and recent transactions (first 10). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it replaces 4-5 separate gRPC calls and is the default 'tell me about this address' tool.

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 clear guidance on when to use: as the default overview tool for an address, and implies it replaces multiple separate calls. It does not exclude deeper dives but gives strong context for its primary use case.

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