validate_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that validity is determined by format plus on-chain existence with balance or transfer activity, which is transparent about the validation criteria. It does not state side effects, but as a validation tool it is implicitly read-only, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the complete purpose and validation criteria without any filler. It is concise and efficient, earning the highest score for structure.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function well: it defines what 'validate' means (format + on-chain existence). It does not describe the return format, which would be helpful but is not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity. The description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter with a clear description ('Qubic address to validate (should be 60 uppercase letters)'), and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('validate') and identifies the resource ('Qubic address'), then clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the two-part check: format and on-chain existence with balance or transfer activity. No other sibling tool performs validation, so this tool is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for validating an address before operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_balance or get_transfer_history for checking activity). It provides no when-not-to-use guidance or references to sibling tools.

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