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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool enumerates visible tokens and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, pagination, permission requirements, or whether 'visible' includes network-created versus user-created tokens. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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, parameterless enumeration tool, the description states the resource and scope. However, it does not clarify how it relates to the sibling 'aman_token' tool, and with no output schema it leaves the response structure unspecified. The description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; the description correctly focuses on the result rather than inputs.

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 identifies a clear resource (AMT-20 tokens) and a clear scope (all visible on this network), implying a listing/read operation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'aman_token', so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, especially 'aman_token' (singular), which likely covers individual token details. The description provides no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual selection hints.

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