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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose useful behavior: which sources are polled and that contracts are attached only 'where Relay lists the token'. It is silent on ordering, pagination behavior of limit, freshness window, and error/empty-result handling, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope (spot token delistings) and source list front-loaded, and the enrichment caveat appended. No filler and nothing that does not earn its place.

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 low-complexity filtered list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers source and scope but leaves parameter behavior (especially limit and how token/exchange filter) undocumented anywhere in the definition. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% for three parameters. The description hints at valid exchange values (Binance, KuCoin, OKX) and implies a token filter, but limit is never explained (default, max, behavior when omitted) and the token parameter's matching semantics are left ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('list recent spot token delistings') and names the three data sources (Binance, KuCoin, OKX announcement feeds), plus an enrichment detail (on-chain contracts). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_chain_shutdowns, but the resource is concrete enough that an agent can identify it.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_chain_shutdowns or exit_quote, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what 'recent' means in practice. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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