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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it offers minimal extra context beyond purpose.

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, concise sentence (12 words) with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only get tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what is retrieved and the associated network context. Although the return structure isn't described, the tool's purpose is self-explanatory for the intended use case.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'format', including its enum values and default. The tool description does not add additional meaning about parameters, relying on the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('mapping between chain IDs and intent relay chain IDs used by the SODAX relay network'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the relay chain ID mapping, which is a unique function.

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 via 'used by the SODAX relay network', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other sodax_get_* tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. It relies on the tool's name and description for inference.

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