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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds domain context and the filtering behavior, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure, so it does not go beyond the annotations in a meaningful way.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a useful pointer to the companion tool. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description covers the domain, use case, and companion tool. It does not mention return format or pagination, but the schema descriptions and annotations provide sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; all parameters (page, sort, type) are fully described with enums and semantics. The description merely reinforces the type filter, adding no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Browse' and the resource 'Alkanes' with a scope ('filtered by type'), and distinguishes it from getAlkaneInfo by indicating this is for market discovery/list-level browsing. It also explains what Alkanes are (Bitcoin smart-contract/token/NFT primitives), adding specificity beyond the tool name.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for market discovery' and recommends pairing with getAlkaneInfo for per-asset detail, providing clear contextual guidance. While it doesn't list explicit when-not-to-use cases, the complementary tool is named, which helps agents decide between list-level and detail-level operations.

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