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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (name, standard, total supply, holder count), what it explicitly does NOT return (floor price), and the reason (no marketplace API for such chains). This is strong, though it omits error handling or edge-case 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?

The description is efficient but slightly redundant, repeating the same limitation multiple times ('NO marketplace floor source', 'chain isn't on Alchemy/OpenSea', 'no NFT marketplace API exists'). Structured well with front-loaded purpose, but could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Considering the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema) and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and prerequisites (contract address). It doesn't detail return format or errors, but for this simple tool it's nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that contract_address is required (in caps) and clarifying that chain should be one without a marketplace floor source, especially Robinhood. This enriches the schema's descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 tool provides NFT collection info (name, standard, total supply, holder count) and explicitly distinguishes itself from nft_floor_price by noting it does NOT return a floor price. This makes the purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when nft_floor_price can't help because the chain isn't on Alchemy/OpenSea' and names the alternative tool. It also states the tool does not return a floor price and emphasizes the need for a contract address, providing clear when-to-use and contextual guidance.

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