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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the assets represent spoke tokens and that filtering by source chain is optional. This goes beyond the schema and helps set expectations about the returned data, though it does not dive into pagination or output details.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose and the main optional behavior. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides enough semantic context (hub chain, spoke tokens, filter) for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect. While it doesn't describe the return structure, the simplicity and annotations make it adequate. A 5 would require more detail (e.g., default behavior when no filter is given), but 4 is reasonable.

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%: both 'format' and 'chainId' are fully documented in the input schema, so the description need not elaborate. The description's phrase 'optionally filtered by source chain' aligns with the chainId parameter but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get assets representing spoke tokens on the hub (Sonic) chain'. This uses a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('assets representing spoke tokens on the hub chain'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_swap_tokens or get_money_market_assets. The optional source-chain filter is also mentioned, adding precision.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need assets on the hub (Sonic) chain that represent spoke tokens, optionally filtering by source chain. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings. No exclusions are provided, but none are necessary.

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