Internal Account Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the authentication path, the fact that the server forwards the key from the session rather than arguments, and that API keys in the payload are masked. It restates "Read-only" redundantly and says nothing about failure modes when no internal account exists, so it stops 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then auth, then return shape, then a safety note — each sentence carries distinct information. The closing "Read-only" is the only mild redundancy with the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the payload shape and masking behavior, and annotations already cover the safety profile. Auth mode selection and the no-argument rule are covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to make the call correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that credentials come from the session/header, which preempts an agent inventing an api-key argument.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and a specific resource (Tronsave internal account profile for the current session), and names the returned fields (wallet/represent address, balances, deposit address), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_deposit_address and get_account_resources. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary against tronsave_get_user_info.

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?

"Use when the user needs their linked address or balance" gives a clear triggering condition, and the auth prerequisites (tronsave_login api-key mode or an Authorization header, never a tool argument) tell the agent whether the call can succeed. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, keeping it below a 5.

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