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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the important boundary that this returns static feed metadata rather than prices, plus what the risk tier encodes (volatility + liquidity). It omits pagination/limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three dense but purposeful sentences: the resource and examples come first, then the risk filter, then the critical scope disclaimer last. The parentheticals add real value rather than filler; only the trailing disambiguation sentence edges toward crowded.

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 only two params, the description adequately conveys what is returned (feed list plus risk tier) and what is not (prices). The gap is the undocumented limit/pagination behavior, which an agent would need to infer from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the risk filter and expands the enum semantics (low/medium/high/new = volatility + liquidity), but says nothing about the limit parameter or its maximum of 500, leaving one of two params undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (FTSO block-latency price feeds) with concrete examples and explicitly disambiguates from price-returning siblings by saying 'this tool returns the feed list, not live prices.' An agent can distinguish it from get_flare_prices and get_ftso_providers without opening a 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?

Clearly signals the use case (enumerate oracle-priced symbols with risk tiers) and the key exclusion (not live prices), and notes the optional risk filter. It does not name the alternative tool to call for live prices, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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