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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description richly discloses behavioral and data-quality traits: provenance types (chain_derived vs issuer_reported), the verification limitations from CIP-0056, holder counts appearing as null rather than zero, and the CCTools public API source. This is substantial value beyond the annotations.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and every sentence contributes distinct value: scope, asset list, parameter behavior, provenance, null semantics, source, and exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers important caveats without padding.

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 compensates by explaining what each row contains, including provenance and holder-count null behavior. It is missing a few precise output details such as units or exact field names, but the coverage is strong enough for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the optional asset parameter, its case-insensitivity, examples, and the omit-to-get-all behavior. The tool description reinforces the omit behavior but does not add meaningful meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'Get total token supply for a Canton-ecosystem asset,' and enumerates the exact supported assets. It also distinguishes its scope from other tools with 'Canton-only; cannot price or size-supply any other chain's tokens,' so an agent can separate it from pricing/market tools.

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 gives clear context on when this tool applies: Canton assets only, with no cross-chain applicability. It also explains how to retrieve all seven assets by omitting the parameter. However, it does not explicitly name or route to alternative sibling tools, so the when-not-to-use guidance is implicit rather than fully explicit.

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