Account info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and the 'not opened' edge case, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or that the operation is read-only, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent relying on the description alone.

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 are appropriately sized and front-loaded with the returned data before the edge case. The first sentence is a dense list but avoids waste and stays under the attention budget.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of listing the returned fields and noting the 'not opened' condition. It remains somewhat incomplete because it never clarifies when to prefer this aggregate info over the more focused sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single account parameter is already documented in the schema as a Nano address. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 identifies the resource (an account) and enumerates the specific data returned: frontier, representative, block count, balance, and open time. It is easy to tell what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like nano_balance or nano_history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nano_balance, nano_history, or nano_receivable. The note about 'not opened' accounts describes an edge case but does not help an agent choose this tool over another.

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