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

Annotations already communicate that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description need not repeat those traits. It does add useful context about the returned data (chains, contract address, decimals), but it doesn't disclose edge-case behavior such as unknown-symbol handling, ordering, or whether unsupported chains are omitted.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core output content is front-loaded. The only minor structural flaw is that it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led sentence, which slightly reduces 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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, it only loosely implies the return shape (a list of chains with address/decimals) and does not mention responses for unknown symbols or empty results, leaving the agent to guess at output 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the 'symbol' parameter. It does so only indirectly by referring to 'an asset', which implies the symbol is the asset identifier. It stops short of specifying the expected format, case sensitivity, or examples, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 states the tool's output content explicitly: every chain an asset is deployed on, plus contract address and token decimals. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like get_asset or get_chain_coverage, though it lacks a direct action verb ('get', 'list'), making it slightly less crisp than a full verb+resource statement.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_asset, get_chain_coverage, or get_address_coverage. It neither states use cases, prerequisites, nor exclusions; the agent can only infer from the name and schema that it takes an asset symbol.

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