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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: 'Free, no auth' and clarifies the semantic tie to create_intent. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, side effects, or output behavior, which would have enriched transparency.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence (fragment) plus a short phrase. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured for quick scanning. The grammar is slightly informal but does not detract from clarity.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, auth, and cost. It might benefit from mentioning response ordering or pagination, but these may be irrelevant given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents chain_id well, but the description adds semantic meaning by linking tokens to what create_intent will admit, providing contextual understanding beyond the raw parameter. It effectively communicates the 'per chain' filtering.

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 identifies the resource (tokens) and scope (per chain, what create_intent will admit). Although it lacks an imperative verb, the tool name and context make the listing action clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_intents by tying to intent admission.

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 implies when to use (when checking acceptable tokens for an intent) and notes no auth is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternate tools or state when not to use. The 'per chain' hints at the chain_id parameter, but exclusions are absent.

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