lcas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond a hint at content — no note on freshness, whether 'how far synced' is a lag measure, or what a 'directory' means in this system.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is grammatically incomplete ('Which chains lcas indexes...') and reads as an afterthought rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool returns.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back. It gestures at the payload (per-chain indexing state and sync progress) but leaves the return shape, granularity, and whether it covers all chains or only those with indexes unclear.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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 the subject (lcas indexes across chains and their sync progress) but is a noun phrase fragment with no verb, so it only implies the action is 'report/list status'. 'lcas' is unexplained jargon, though the tool name plus description together give a rough sense of purpose.

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 indication of when to call this versus anything else, no prerequisites, no mention of what an agent should do with the result. Since siblings (get_agent, search_agents) are unrelated, differentiation is less critical, but there is still zero usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates what the result contains (30-day history, weekly live test where one exists, money hints), which for an inspection tool is the key behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention cost, rate limits or size of the payload, keeping it at 4.

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 clause is front-loaded correctly, but the remainder is a single dense run-on enumeration of seven payload categories that is hard to parse in one pass. Every item is arguably informative given the absence of an output schema, but the structure would benefit from splitting or grouping.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so in detail (endpoints, history, live test, tools/skills, copies, feedback, money hints). It is nearly complete for a read-only lookup; only the result shape/format and pagination-or-truncation behavior are unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry explicit descriptions (ERC-8004 token ID pattern, chain_id 1=Ethereum/8453=Base). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with 'Details of one agent' and then enumerates the specific payload (endpoint check results, 30-day history, live test, tools/skills, copies, feedback counts, money hints). That is a specific resource with a rich content list, clearly distinguishable from search_agents which returns multiple agents. The verb phrase 'Details of' is noun-style rather than an action verb, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Use is only implied: a per-agent detail lookup implies you call it after identifying an agent via search_agents. The description never states when to prefer it over search_agents or directory_status, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that both chain_id and agent_id must already be known). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with result ordering (newest first), deduplication of copies, and the fact that per-service check status is reported. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what fields each entry contains.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of result-shape and sibling routing. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description conveys scope, ordering, deduplication, and what the check-status field means. Pagination exists only via the cursor parameter's schema text, so a brief note on paging would close the remaining gap.

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?

With 86% schema description coverage, the schema already documents chain, money, query, service, working_only and cursor in detail. The description adds only indirect context by mentioning that service types pass "lcas's last check," which loosely maps to working_only. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the lcas directory of ERC-8004 agents") and immediately characterizes the result ordering and grouping. It also names the sibling get_agent as the path to full details, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Explicitly routes deep-detail lookups to get_agent, giving a clear alternative for one common case. It does not address when to use this versus directory_status, nor does it say when listing (omitting query) is preferable to querying, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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