get_owners_for_nft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get owners' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of addresses). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get owners of a specific NFT' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (with 2 required), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, pagination details), output format, and usage guidelines, which are critical for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly in a server with many NFT/blockchain-related siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (contractAddress, tokenId, pageKey, pageSize). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that contractAddress and tokenId uniquely identify an NFT) or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the 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?

The description 'Get owners of a specific NFT' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('owners of a specific NFT'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_nfts_for_owner' (which gets NFTs for an owner) and 'get_nft_metadata' (which gets metadata), but could be more specific about what 'owners' entails (e.g., current holders vs. historical).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing contract address and token ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_nfts_for_owner' or 'get_transfers_for_contract', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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