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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does so by listing the exact circuits and URLs and adding the caveat that 'payment networks are independent of circuit verification.' It doesn't explicitly state read-only/no-auth behavior, but the verb 'List' and zero-parameter schema make the operation's nature clear enough.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and the bullet list is a compact way to show expected resource names and URLs. The 'Hosted tools' line and payment-network note add context, though they could have been trimmed slightly without losing core value.

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 no-input, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names every supported circuit, gives the canonical guide URLs, and tells the agent how to proceed. It omits minor details like response format or stability of the list, but these are unlikely to block a correct call.

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 input schema already communicates zero parameters, and the description isn't obligated to document any. It could have explicitly said 'takes no arguments,' but with 0 params and full schema coverage this is not a meaningful gap.

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 opens with a crisp verb+resource pair: 'List every supported circuit and canonical guide URL.' It clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from its siblings (get_guide reads a guide, prove runs a proof) by enumerating what the list contains.

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 establishes a clear workflow: call this to obtain the supported circuits and guide URLs, then 'Read each guide' for attestation source/input schema/verification chain. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name get_guide/prove as the alternatives in a direct comparison.

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