Stellar account overview

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by calling it a 'Public overview' and by explaining the derived 'spendable XLM after the reserve and open-offer liabilities' semantics. It does not cover error behavior for malformed addresses or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the returned-field inventory leads, and the input precondition follows. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so explicitly. The only gaps are secondary behavior: how an invalid or non-existent account is reported and whether payments are capped/ordered beyond the payments_limit default.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's note that it 'takes a public address starting with G' merely restates the schema and it says nothing about payments_limit, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 names a precise resource ('a Stellar account') and enumerates its returned contents: balances, spendable XLM after reserve/open-offer liabilities, signers, thresholds, flags such as clawback, and latest payments. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like stellar_asset, stellar_orderbook, and stellar_network_status, which each cover a different resource.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for inspecting a single account, and 'Public overview' hints no auth is needed. It never states when to prefer it over a sibling or what happens for a non-account input, so there are no explicit when/when-not rules.

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