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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds the useful scoping fact that only one field is returned and explains where that field is derived from, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or fallback when the field is unset.

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 clauses, with the scoping constraint ('GET ONLY') front-loaded and the payload contents immediately after. It is dense with domain jargon and the lineage sentence is somewhat redundant, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the returned payload and does so concretely. It is close to complete for a simple read tool; only the unset/empty case and any title-permission requirement are unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter (title_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline for a one-param tool.

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 ('GET ONLY the Blockchain field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel') and enumerates exactly what that field contains (chain selectors, contract addresses, RPC overrides, gas policy, supported networks). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_currency by naming the data lineage (Currency.CryptoCurrencies[].Networks) and calling itself the title-level companion config.

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?

'GET ONLY' clearly frames this as a scoped read against the title config, and the lineage note tells the agent how it relates to get_currency. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule (e.g. 'use get_currency for per-currency network data'), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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