get_grant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and that the resource may not exist ('if it exists'), and mentions 'label is untrusted text' as a security hint. However, it omits details on return format, error behavior, or permissions, which are important for such a tool.

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 very concise, with each clause earning its place: 'Read-only.' states the operation type, 'Fetch the Grant PDA if it exists.' states the purpose, 'No signing.' reinforces safety, and 'label is untrusted text.' adds an important note. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite being simple, the description lacks crucial context: it does not explain the distinction between 'root' and 'agent' parameters, nor does it clarify what 'label' refers to. With no output schema, the return structure is also unaddressed, leaving real ambiguity for an agent.

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 both parameters are documented. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond that; the mention of 'label' does not map to schema properties. Thus it does not exceed the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 fetches the Grant PDA with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Grant PDA'), and explicitly marks it as read-only. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'check_grant' tool, so an agent cannot easily decide which to use without additional context.

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 mentions 'Read-only' and 'No signing' but does not provide any when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say why one would use this over check_grant or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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