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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive context the schema can't: provenance semantics (chain_derived for CC vs issuer_reported for everything else), the CIP-0056 reason those numbers aren't audited, and that holder counts appear as null rather than zero. This is exactly what an agent needs to avoid misusing 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the caveats, then the scope limit. The provenance sentence is long but every clause earns its place given the unreliable-data warning it conveys; slightly dense but not padded.

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 carries the full return-shape burden and does so: it explains what each row contains (provenance), how holder counts surface (null, not zero), and where data originates (CCTools public API). Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents case-insensitivity and the omit-for-all behavior, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the concrete valid asset set (CC, CBTC, HECTO, HANDL, USDCx, EDELx, cETH), which the schema only gestures at with two examples, reducing the chance of an invalid slug.

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 ('Get total token supply') and enumerates the exact asset universe (CC, CBTC, HECTO, HANDL, USDCx, EDELx, cETH). The scope clause 'Canton-only; cannot price or size-supply any other chain's tokens' cleanly separates it from siblings like get_token_market and get_network_stats.

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?

Gives clear operating context: omit the asset param to return all seven, and use it only for Canton-ecosystem assets. The exclusion ('cannot price or size-supply any other chain's tokens') is a useful when-not boundary, though it never names an alternative tool to use instead when the data isn't Canton-scoped.

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