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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the result includes the token's work, but does not describe error behavior, lookup failure conditions, or response shape.

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 tightly packed sentence with no filler, and the key lookup criteria are front-loaded. The phrase "with its work" is somewhat vague but does add useful scope information efficiently.

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 three-parameter lookup with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core lookup and notes that work data is included. It still leaves return-value details and edge-case behavior unspecified, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that chain, contract, and tokenId together identify a token and gives chain examples (eip155:1 or eip155:360), but it does not explain expected contract address formatting or token ID semantics.

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 a specific retrieval operation: one token identified by chain, contract address, and token ID. It also notes that the result includes the token's work, which helps distinguish it from pure metadata lookups, though it is terse and does not explicitly contrast with get_work or search_works.

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 identifiers imply that this is a direct single-token lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of search_works, get_work, or other sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection logic are provided.

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