azeth_list_agreements

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and excels: declares 'read-only on-chain query' (safety), warns 'may take a few seconds' for large accounts (performance), notes 'iterates through all agreements' (implementation), and specifies return format 'Array of agreement summaries sorted by ID' (output compensation for missing schema).

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?

Perfect structure: purpose statement → use cases → returns → technical notes. No wasted words. Performance warning is essential context. Front-loaded with clear intent.

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?

Comprehensive for a list tool: compensates for missing output schema by describing return array structure and sorting, covers performance implications of on-chain iteration, and documents behavioral characteristics that annotations would typically provide.

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 has 100% description coverage (chain variants, account formats, status enum values). Description mentions filtering by status in usage context but does not add syntax/format details beyond schema. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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: 'List all payment agreements for a smart account with summary status' provides specific verb (List), resource (payment agreements), scope (all, with summary status), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling azeth_get_agreement (singular detail fetch) by emphasizing 'all' and 'summary'.

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?

Strong 'Use this when' section lists four specific scenarios including finding agreement IDs and checking due agreements. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or naming of alternatives like azeth_get_agreement for detailed single-record views.

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