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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety semantics are covered structurally. The description adds only the domain framing ('on-chain marketplace catalog'), which mildly reinforces the open-world nature but discloses nothing about pagination behavior or result volume.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with two undocumented pagination parameters and no usage guidance or sibling routing, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Both parameters (limit, offset) have 0% schema description coverage and are also unmentioned in the description, so an agent gets no textual explanation of pagination, defaults, or the 1-100 / 0-1000000 bounds. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List providers') scoped to the 'Daski on-chain marketplace catalog', which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the singular daski_get_provider. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other list-style siblings (daski_list_assets, daski_list_outcomes), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of pagination flow, and no pointer to sibling tools such as daski_get_provider for single-record lookups. The agent must infer applicability purely from the name and one-line description.

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