jan3_enable_lightning_address

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains the enabling mechanism (batch of Liquid addresses, best-effort pool population), prerequisites, and the need for user consent. It does not disclose potential side effects like costs or rate limits, which prevents a higher score.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It provides necessary detail without fluff. Could benefit from structured bullet points, but current form is effective.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the mechanism, prerequisites, and user authorization. It is reasonably complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about 'ln_address_pool' and Liquid addresses but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Enable or disable the user's Lightning Address.' It provides specific context about what enabling entails (delivering inbound payments via Liquid addresses) and distinguishes it from other jan3 tools like login or user_info.

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 explicitly says 'Ask the user first' and 'Requires a prior JAN3 login,' giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which would merit a higher score.

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