Extendable Receivers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description's 'read-only' is redundant, but it adds real value by noting the tool is public and accepts any requester address (no auth requirement). It also specifies the returned fields including expiry in Unix seconds, which clarifies unit semantics beyond the structured data.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core capability and return fields are front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool. The one omission is the purpose/effect of the `resourceType` parameter, which an agent must guess at.

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 only 50%: `requester` is documented in the schema and echoed here, but `resourceType` (an ENERGY/BANDWIDTH enum filter) is left unexplained in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for that gap or clarify what filtering by resource type does.

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 (list) and resource (receiver addresses with extendable delegations), plus the scoping condition ('delegations bought by `requester` which can still be extended'). The receiver focus implicitly distinguishes it from tronsave_list_extendable_delegates, which is the closest sibling.

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 says 'Use as the first step of an extension flow to find which receiver to extend', giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name the follow-up tools (e.g. tronsave_internal_create_extend_request) or state when to use the delegate-listing sibling instead, so guidance stops short of full routing.

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