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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds value beyond these by explaining network-specific return fields and the default sort order (score for FLR, vote power for SGB). It also notes that SGB lacks a score 'by design,' which is a behavioral nuance not in the annotations. No contradiction with the read-only hint.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds network-specific details, default sort, and the limit cap. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is well structured.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, per-network field differences, default sort, and the limit constraint. It does not delve into what a 'score' means or error handling, but those are likely out of scope for a basic list operation. The mention of return fields provides sufficient context for an agent to interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'limit caps at 100' (which is already the maximum in the schema) and implies the network parameter through the phrase 'on Flare or Songbird.' It does not explain that limit controls the number of results or that network selects the chain, beyond what the schema's type/pattern already imply. This is insufficient given zero coverage.

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: 'List FTSO data providers on Flare or Songbird.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_ftso_providers (comparison) and get_ftso_provider_history/metrics (history/metrics) by focusing on the listing itself. The network-specific differences are also articulated, making the scope precise.

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 provides clear context on what the tool returns for each network (Flare has Composite Score, Songbird has vote power/fee/last-epoch reward rate), which implicitly guides when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings like compare_ftso_providers.

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