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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' confirms this. The description adds transparency about the return format (array of objects with address, name, symbol, decimals) and that it is safe (no side effects). No contradictory or missing behavioral traits.

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 three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, read-only nature, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations provide read-only hint, the description fully explains what the tool does, how to use the result, and what the return value contains. It leaves no gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for configId. The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('Returns'), resource ('ERC-20 tokens accepted as exchange tokens'), and scope ('on the given configId deployment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is for querying tokens, not mutating them, and gives usage context ('Use returned addresses in exchangeTokenAddress fields of create_offer').

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 the agent when to use this tool: to obtain token addresses for create_offer. It marks the operation as read-only, implying safe invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling list includes many mutation tools, making the distinction clear.

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