rescan_ltc_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and no destructiveness; description adds valuable context: retries on transient errors, parallelism bounded to LITECOIN_INDEXER_PARALLELISM, three-state extend signal, and no Ledger interaction. Slightly verbose but no contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections but is slightly repetitive (e.g., 'Pure indexer-side: NO Ledger / USB interaction' appears twice). Still, every sentence adds value and it's easy to parse.

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 fully explains the three-state extend signal, indexer behavior (parallelism, retries), and when to use alternative tools. Covers all necessary context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains the return signals (needsExtend, unverifiedChains), that it updates persisted cache, and the use case for accountIndex. Parameter description in schema is also detailed.

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 starts with 'READ-ONLY — refresh the cached on-chain `txCount` for every paired Litecoin address under one Ledger account by re-querying the indexer,' clearly stating the verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like rescan_btc_account and pair_ledger_ltc by specifying Litecoin and indexer-side operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'after the user has received funds (so a previously-empty cached address now has history) or when the indexer was stale at the original `pair_ledger_ltc` scan time.' Also provides exclusions: 'Pure indexer-side: NO Ledger / USB interaction,' and alternatives (re-run pair_ledger_ltc for needsExtend, re-run rescan for unverifiedChains).

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