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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that content is untrusted team-authored text and should be treated as data, which is a genuine behavioral instruction an agent needs before reading the output.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the resource and scope come first, and the trust caveat is a single closing clause. Nothing to cut.

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, the description usefully previews the returned fields (links, description, supply) and gives the one behavioral caveat that matters for untrusted text. It could mention pagination or the volume of results, but for a one-optional-param read tool it is essentially complete.

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% and the 'unit' parameter is fully documented there (hex policy id + asset name, omit to list all). The description's 'the one for a token' only restates that semantics without adding format or usage detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (self-service project pages published by token teams) and its content (links, description, supply), with scope 'all of them or the one for a token.' It is clearly not a price/market tool, distinguishing it implicitly from get_token and get_token_prices, though it never names a sibling.

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 'either all of them or the one for a token' phrasing implies when to pass a scope, and 'self-service... published by teams' implies it is for qualitative project context rather than metrics. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g., use instead of get_token when you need team-authored context).

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