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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'snapshot', which honestly discloses the non-mutating nature. It does not cover edge cases like invalid addresses, but the simple read-only nature mitigates the need.

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?

The entire description is one short sentence, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and immediately conveys the purpose, input, and output. No superfluous words.

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?

The tool is simple with one input and has an output schema; the description states the key return fields (balance, nonce). Given the low complexity and existing output schema, the description is adequate. It doesn't mention error handling, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 schema has a single address parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying the address format as 'anim1...' and clarifying that it is the account to snapshot. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states 'READ-ONLY account snapshot for an anim1... address: balance + nonce.' This clearly identifies the tool's function (fetching account state) and the specific output (balance and nonce), distinguishing it from sibling tools like block/head queries.

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?

The description implies usage for when account balance and nonce are needed but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like animica_chain_block or animica_chain_head. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative mentions.

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