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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies read-only and the optional filter is noted, but for a list tool with no output schema the description says nothing about result size, truncation/pagination, or whether the full universe is returned. Adequate but with a real gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the filter detail and the usage cue. Every sentence 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 single-optional-parameter lookup tool, the definition is largely sufficient: purpose, filter, and when to reach for it are all present. The only omission is any indication of result scope/volume, which is minor for a list tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Optional search query to filter symbols'), and the description mirrors that wording without adding syntax, matching behavior, or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List supported asset symbols.' The resource (symbols) is distinct from sibling getters like get_feeds and get_protocols, so an agent can differentiate it. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, which keeps it from 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when you are unsure whether a symbol is supported.' That is a clear when-to-use statement. It does not name what to use instead once symbol support is confirmed, so no exclusions/alternatives are covered.

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