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 that this is a registry of all feeds with specific address types, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't include caveats like data size or update frequency, but for a simple registry this is acceptable.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core idea ('Registry of all...') and provides all necessary information without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter registry tool, this description is complete. It states exactly what the tool provides (all tokenized feeds and their contract addresses), and annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema is needed, as the content is clearly described.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific noun ('Registry') and clearly defines the tool as a listing of all tokenized stock and crypto feeds on Robinhood Chain, specifying the exact content (Chainlink proxy + token contract addresses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hood_quote or hood_pools, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is stated, but the description clearly indicates this is the source for feed registry addresses. An agent can infer it's for looking up feed addresses, but it doesn't mention exclusions or alternate tools for comparison.

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