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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the enumeration of returned fields (slug, title, keyword, summary, last_updated) and confirms read-only, which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss caching or pagination behavior.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded blocks (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, RETURNS) with no filler sentences. The routing information precedes the return-shape detail, which is the right ordering for selection.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the aggregate shape { total, pages: [...] } and per-page fields. Nothing needed to select or invoke this zero-required-parameter list tool is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description already covers the markdown/json enum at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only contributes an empty Example: {} to signal no arguments are needed, which is a marginal addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource (list every Onchain Agent wiki page) and states the concrete value: obtaining slugs/titles for sourced explainer pages. It explicitly differentiates itself from onchain_agent_get_wiki_page and onchain_agent_search_resources, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Contains explicit USE WHEN and NOT FOR clauses with named alternatives (get_wiki_page for reading, search_resources for finding projects) plus the triggering condition of needing a slug first. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are spelled out.

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