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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the data source is on-chain totalSupply reads priced at current values, and available=false is returned when the read fails or no assets are minted. This helps the agent interpret unexpected results, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first clause, followed by a field list, source methodology, and failure behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no redundancy.

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 and no parameters, the description fulfills the explanatory burden entirely. It specifies all returned fields, the aggregation, the valuation method, and the available=false failure case, leaving no missing information an agent needs to invoke or interpret the tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation burden exists. The schema and description agree completely, and the description's explanation of the computed TVL formula compensates for the lack of input context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return FAssets status on Flare.' It then enumerates the exact output fields (symbol, underlying asset, minted amount, USD TVL, total_tvl_usd) and gives an example asset (FXRP), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from all sibling tools, which address validators, FTSO, agents, and portfolios.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the FAssets status endpoint for Flare, giving an agent enough context to select it when FAsset metrics are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling appears to cover FAssets, so exclusions are less necessary.

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