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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it's a registry listing with filtering, which supplements the annotation's title but does not repeat safety traits. It does not, however, disclose pagination, sorting, or rate limits, which are relevant for a potentially large list.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the filter options. There is no waste or filler, though it could be slightly more specific about the registry scope.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only list with three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but does not explain return behavior (e.g., format, pagination) despite no output schema being provided. For a registry listing, this is a notable gap because the agent cannot anticipate response structure.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (type, chain, symbol) with descriptions and an enum for type. The description only repeats the filtering dimensions without adding syntax, format, or default behavior, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered tokens and NFT collections in the Insumer registry'), and the filtering capability is explicit. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like insumer_list_merchants; the registry concept is clear but sibling routing is absent.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of when filtering is necessary versus optional. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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