Veil Subaccount Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating lookup, but there is no mention of what happens if the slot/key doesn't exist, required auth, or cost/latency. For a slot-keyed read with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the surface area is small, so the description is near-adequate. However, it never says what 'status' contains or how it relates to the sibling veil_status / veil_deposit_status tools, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 0%, so the bare 'slot: number' schema documents nothing. The phrase 'local Veil key slot' does add meaning by indicating the slot identifies a local key, but it gives no valid range, format, or default.

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 ('Read') and resource ('Veil subaccount status'), and scopes it to 'a local Veil key slot'. This does distinguish it somewhat from siblings like veil_status and veil_deposit_status, though it never explicitly contrasts with them. Purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 indication of when to call this versus veil_status, veil_deposit_status, or veil_get_balances, nor any precondition such as requiring a previously initialized keypair. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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