ecash_get_agent_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The word 'View' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error conditions, required permissions, or whether the address must be registered, leaving some ambiguity.

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, dense sentence that immediately states the action and key content. There is no filler or redundant information; every word contributes meaning.

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 lists the primary output topics (mining tier, arbitration stats, job history) but does not explain the output format or error behavior. With no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but for a simple one-parameter lookup it is reasonably adequate.

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?

The only parameter 'address' is fully described in the schema as 'The agent address to look up', so the schema already provides complete semantics. The description adds no additional details about the expected format or valid values, so the baseline of 3 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 it views an agent's full profile and enumerates the contents (mining tier, arbitration stats, job history). The verb 'View' is specific and the resource is well-defined. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling ecash_get_agent, but the detail implies a broader scope than a basic agent lookup.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecash_get_agent or ecash_find_agents. The description only states what the tool does, not the context for choosing it over similar tools.

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