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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial operational context: live vs announced listing semantics, the 'launch date and no supply, price, or holders' distinction, and the data-quality gating rule that figures appear only when their check passed. The explicit warning that 'omitted fields are unpublished, not zero' is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Front-loads purpose then routing then return shape in a logical order, and each section earns its place. It is long, but the length is largely justified by the absence of an output schema; a few of the per-figure glosses could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: the JSON envelope keys, the card fields, the conditions under which each figure is populated, the meaning of omission, and the as_of timestamp semantics are all covered. All 8 optional parameters are documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 every filter (chain, query, issuer, category, limit, offset, include_upcoming, response_format) is already documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description only restates the filterable facets ('ticker, name, category, chain, or issuer') without adding format or precedence detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List published tokenized assets') and immediately scopes what the results are ('Live assets are the galactic.inc screener universe'), which an agent can distinguish from get_asset, market_totals, and compute_vaults without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call it 'to find an asset by ticker, name, category, chain, or issuer before get_asset', naming the sibling alternative and the condition that selects it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or edge-case guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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