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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance by clarifying that the list represents 'what RAVN knows about and might route', not a guaranteed routing list, and directs to ravn_quote for verification. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or other behaviors.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a crucial caveat and pointer to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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?

Given that the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, scope, limitations, and directs to the relevant sibling tool for further verification. For a read-only list tool with clear annotations, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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%, with both apiKey and chainId having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameters themselves (e.g., formatting, optionality), so it remains at the baseline of 3—the schema carries the full burden and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb and resource ('List RAVN's token registry for one chain') and adds a concrete use case ('populate a token picker without hardcoding one'). It also distinguishes itself from ravn_quote by clarifying it is not a per-pair routability guarantee, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to populate a token picker) and when not (for per-pair routability, directing to ravn_quote). It even names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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