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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing data provenance (/v1/chains, /v1/plans, documentation catalog) and the semantics of availability being governed by methods.allow and methods.deny rules, which is real behavioral context.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the substantive content and zero filler. The trailing provenance sentence is marginally useful but is the least essential part.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Parameters are fully documented. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to overlapping siblings, which is minor for a simple single-method lookup.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the chain-filtering behavior ('If specified, only availability for this chain is returned'). The description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

Specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('a method') and an enumeration of exactly what is returned: cross-chain availability, CU weight, price per million calls, and doc link. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from siblings such as get_pricing or list_chains, which return overlapping pricing/chain data.

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 per-method framing implies the use case (look up one named method), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no guidance on when to prefer get_pricing or read_doc instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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