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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral value: it states the result is static, does not change per request, and is safe to cache. This is exactly the kind of context beyond the annotation that helps an agent decide whether and how often to call the tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words: the purpose is front-loaded and the caching guidance follows naturally. Every sentence earns 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?

This is a simple read-only list with no required parameters and an output schema available. The description covers the key non-obvious facts—stability, cacheability, and the relationship to ravn_tokens—leaving nothing essential missing for correct invocation.

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% and the single optional apiKey parameter is already fully documented in the schema as a rate-limit booster. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 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 states the specific resource: every chain RAVN maintains a token registry for, and the parenthetical cross-reference to ravn_tokens distinguishes it from the sibling that lists tokens. The title adds the clear verb 'List'. An agent can immediately tell what this tool returns and how it differs from the token-related siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: the data is static, per-request invariant, and safe to cache instead of hardcoding a chain table. This effectively tells the agent when to call it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a specific alternative tool beyond the ravn_tokens cross-reference.

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