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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: holder data exists only on some chains, so results may be unavailable depending on chain. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens on a chain without a holder ledger.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the availability caveat is placed where it matters. The parenthetical and trailing clause are slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity about which chains actually qualify.

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 does carry the burden of conveying the return shape, and 'balances by address' minimally does that. However, for a 3-parameter, cross-chain data tool it omits the unsupported-chain behavior, default/max row semantics, and any result ordering, leaving the agent with only a partial picture.

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%, so chain, address and limit are already documented in-schema, including the EVM vs Solana address format distinction. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource — a token holder ledger returning balances keyed by address — which is a distinct artifact from siblings like chord_token or chord_wallet. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, and lacks an explicit verb, so an agent must infer that this is a read of holder balances. Clear, but no sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative for holder-style queries. The clause 'on the chains that keep one' implies an availability condition, but it neither lists which chains qualify nor points the agent to chord_chains (only the schema does).

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