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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: results include live balances, Merchant Bucks are store credit with a specific flag and decimal precision, and an empty list is a valid outcome rather than an error. This materially helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and scope, and every sentence contributes: what is listed, the important store-credit caveat, and the empty-list interpretation. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: scope, live balances, the store-credit warning that prevents misuse, and empty-list semantics. Nothing critical an agent needs to call or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description provides context about the implicit scope ('the linked account has launched on Base'), which is useful, but there are no parameter definitions to add meaning to since the schema is empty.

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 states a specific verb (list), a specific resource (community tokens and merchant Bucks the linked account has launched on Base), and the output characteristic (live balances). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like swop_list_my_products and swop_get_my_balances, even without naming them.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting launched tokens on Base and emphasizes that it is read-only, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swop_list_my_products or swop_get_my_balances. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so usage context is mostly inferred.

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