Explain a Stellar account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds value by disclosing that the output is an interpreted explanation (plain language) rather than raw data, and describes the scope (reserve, trustline authorization, etc.). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover error cases.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences front-load the purpose and details, followed by practical example questions. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 output schema, the description clearly explains the return content (balance, reserve, assets, trustlines, signers, thresholds). It also covers representative user intents and distinguishes from sibling tools. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the overall context is complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter (address) with details about format (starts with G, not C), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making a baseline 3 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: to read and explain a Stellar account's state in plain language. It lists specific details (XLM balance, reserve, assets, trustlines, signers, thresholds) and differentiates from siblings like explain_contract by focusing on accounts. Example questions ('what do I hold') further clarify intent.

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 gives explicit use cases ('Use this to answer...'), which indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the account-specific focus and sibling tool names provide clear context. This is close to a 5 but lacks explicit exclusions.

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