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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: two data sources, a hard cap of 50 results, no price data, and an explicit refusal policy for price/APY/yield questions. It does not describe the result shape or pagination, which is why it is not a 5.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the closing disclaimers overlap: 'do not include prices', 'Not a price or yield question' (in the schema), and the APY/returns/yield/investment-advice refusal restate the same boundary in three places. Trimming to one disclaimer would strengthen it.

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, fully optional, read-only listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers source, scope, cap, and refusal behavior. The main residual gap is that with no output schema, the return fields per token (symbol, name, address, decimals?) are not hinted at.

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 limit, query, and network are already well documented, including enum values and chain IDs. The description largely restates that (symbol or name matching, networks, 50 cap) and only adds the useful clarification that a .qie name is not a valid query. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List tokens') and pins scope to QIE mainnet (chain 1990) or testnet (chain 1983), plus the data source (configured token list or network explorer). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like qie_get_balances, qie_get_network_info, or qie_resolve_name.

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?

It states what the optional query matches (symbol or name) and explicitly warns that a QIE ID like yourname.qie is not a token query, which steers agents away from a common misuse. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. qie_resolve_name for IDs) or states when not to use this tool beyond out-of-scope price questions.

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