read_asset_manager_current

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent, yet the description adds material behavior the agent could not otherwise know: the exact shape of returned manager data, Merkl claim state including unregistered reward tokens, and the critical failure semantic that read_ok=false means the result is unreliable rather than empty. That last point preempts a dangerous misread of an empty-looking response.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return contents, then the deprecated-manager escape hatch, then the read_ok caveat — a sensible ordering. The middle sentence is a dense parenthetical list of fields, which is slightly heavy but every clause carries information an agent uses.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values did not need spelling out, yet the description covers the ambiguity an output schema cannot: the deprecated bucket's remediation path and the read_ok=false/empty distinction. For a read-only, two-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with chain_id even enumerating chain values inline, so the description is not required to carry the parameters. It adds no syntax or format detail for account_address or chain_id beyond stating results are 'on-chain configuration' — baseline 3 for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read which asset managers are currently enabled on an account') and scopes the result precisely to active vs. superseded deployments. That active/deprecated split, plus the reference to sibling read_asset_manager_intents via 'the intents they map to', lets an agent distinguish it from the other read_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the follow-up action for deprecated managers: 'pass their addresses to write_account_automations_delta to clear them, or run write_account_automations which disables them as part of the save' — a genuine when-this-then-that rule with a named alternative. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over read_asset_manager_intents, so it is strong context rather than a full decision tree.

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