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

The description only states that it 'returns' config, adding no behavioral detail about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the meaning of the annotations. The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which is not addressed by the description, leaving ambiguity about whether this tool has destructive side effects. Without clarification, the description does not help the agent understand the true safety profile beyond what annotations already provide.

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 concise: two sentences with the primary purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant content, effectively conveying essential information in minimal length.

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 simple config-retrieval tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what is returned and how to use it. However, it does not address the destructiveHint annotation or elaborate on potential side effects, nor does it describe the return format in detail (though an output schema is absent). This leaves some contextual gaps but is not severely incomplete.

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%, so the input schema fully describes both parameters (chain and mcp_token) including case-insensitivity and the 403 error for missing token. The description adds minimal parameter-level information, only implying that the returned chain value is the output from the chain parameter. Since schema already does the heavy lifting, the description's contribution is marginal.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns chain config (networkKey, accountKey, chainID).' It specifies the exact resource (chain config) and the exact verb (returns), and it goes beyond by explaining the purpose of the returned value in subsequent transfer/sign/broadcast tools. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools that perform different operations.

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 explicitly says 'Use the returned chain value in all subsequent transfer/sign/broadcast tools,' which provides clear guidance on when this tool should be used (before transfer/sign/broadcast operations). However, it does not mention any alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, so it lacks exclusions.

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