azeth_get_agreement

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

Comprehensive disclosure appropriate for zero annotations: explicitly states 'read-only on-chain query,' gas requirements ('no gas'), and authentication needs ('no private key required...but account resolution may need your key'). Also clarifies return characteristics ('human-readable amounts') and specific account syntax caveats.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (main description, Use this when, Returns, Note). Front-loaded with core action. Every sentence conveys unique operational guidance; no redundancy with schema or sibling tool names.

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?

Complete for a read-only query tool: describes return value contents ('Complete agreement details with human-readable amounts') despite lack of output schema, covers blockchain-specific concerns (gas, keys, on-chain nature), and contextualizes within the broader agreement lifecycle (creation→inspection→execution/cancellation).

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% so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining security implications for specific account parameter values ('me' or '#N' require key for resolution), providing critical semantic context beyond the schema's type description.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'View full details of a payment agreement' provides clear verb+resource, and enumerates specific data points (status, payment history, next execution time). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like azeth_execute_agreement and azeth_cancel_agreement by emphasizing inspection/verification rather than mutation.

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?

Exemplary explicit guidelines under 'Use this when:' covering three distinct scenarios (pre-execution inspection, post-creation verification, payment history checks). Directly references sibling operations 'executing or cancelling' to establish clear selection criteria vs state-changing alternatives.

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