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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only that the set is "live right now," implying the list is dynamic — a small but real addition. It says nothing about freshness, caching, or why the set might change, so it stays at 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The content of the response is front-loaded and the routing advice follows immediately, so an agent gets the essential facts in the first read.

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 carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does name the two key fields (settlement engine address, buildable tokens). It stops short of describing the shape of those fields — identifiers versus objects, chain naming — which would help an agent chain this into trdefi_quote or trdefi_positions.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description usefully clarifies that the returned identifiers are the intended inputs to other calls, which is better than nothing.

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 names the resource (live networks) and enumerates what comes back: each network's settlement engine address and the tokens a position can be built from. That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from trdefi_quote, trdefi_positions, or trdefi_stats 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?

"Use this instead of hardcoding chain or token identifiers" gives a clear condition for reaching for this tool rather than relying on built-in knowledge. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but no sibling is a true substitute for this discovery call, so the guidance is adequate.

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