contract_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation ('Read state... without executing a transaction'), discloses the cost ('Costs 0.1 HBAR'), and implies it's a query rather than a mutation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and scope, while the second adds critical behavioral information (cost). There's no wasted text or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (read operation with cost disclosure), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavioral traits (read-only, cost), and distinguishes from alternatives. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or error formats, leaving some gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 already documents both parameters (api_key and contract_id) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for contract_id or usage context for api_key. The baseline of 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 clearly states the specific action ('Read state from a Hedera smart contract') and lists the types of information retrieved ('contract info, bytecode size, recent activity, and storage details'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by explicitly stating 'without executing a transaction', which differentiates it from tools like contract_call that likely execute transactions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('get contract info, bytecode size, recent activity, and storage details without executing a transaction'), which implicitly suggests it's for read-only queries rather than state-changing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the siblings (e.g., contract_analyze, contract_call).

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