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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses the rate limit (20 an hour), the caller scope, the re-check cadence (hourly for a week), and which statuses are terminal (rejected/delisted). It does not say whether the call has side effects (creating a listing request, cost, or persistence), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and rate limit, then status semantics, then the auto-check exclusion. Dense but every clause carries information; the long status enumeration is justified because there is no output schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return semantics (listed/pending/closed/rejected/delisted and the `reasons` field) plus lifecycle behavior. Only the side-effect/response-shape question (is a request id returned? is it a write?) is left open.

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 50%: chain has examples, address is bare. The description compensates by defining address as an EVM contract address or a Solana mint address, which is exactly the missing semantics and explains the chain/address dependency.

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 and resource: list a token by contract (EVM) or mint (Solana) address, via Hashlock. No sibling tool (all RFQ/swap/wallet operations) covers token listing, so the agent can route here unambiguously 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?

Explicitly scopes the caller ("scope: taker") and gives a when-not rule: Bankr/Virtuals/Clanker launches in their first week are checked automatically, so "after that, or for any other token, ask here." No sibling alternative is named, but the automatic-vs-manual boundary is clear.

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