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

With no annotations, the description must clarify behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose response format, ordering, or pagination. It provides basic transparency but leaves room for assumptions.

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. It communicates the essential purpose without wasting words.

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?

Given the zero-parameter nature and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple listing tool. However, it lacks any mention of the return value's structure (e.g., array of objects with specific fields), which becomes important because no output schema is provided. This gap prevents it from being 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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. No additional information is required.

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 states a clear, specific verb ('list') and resource ('supported blockchain networks'). It is distinct from sibling tools, as none other deals with networks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself by mentioning alternatives or the context of use.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or related tools like list_agents or list_categories. The user must infer when to call it.

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