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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: per-address pricing ($0.004 USDC) and a 1-20 address bound. It omits the read-only nature, pagination behavior (despite a page_size param), and the return shape, which is a meaningful gap for a paid batch tool.

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 with the core capability front-loaded and cost/limit constraints in the second. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost and batch limits but leaves pagination, chain behavior, and return contents unexplained. Adequate but short of what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 33% — chain is documented, addresses and page_size are not. The description partially compensates by restating the 1-20 address range (which the schema already enforces via minItems/maxItems) but adds nothing about page_size or chain semantics.

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 — batching NFT ownership lookups across multiple addresses — and the phrase 'in one call' makes the batch nature explicit. It doesn't name the single-address sibling (cortex_nft_ownership) it is meant to replace, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 the tool is for multi-address work but never states when to use it versus cortex_nft_ownership or the other cortex_aggregate_* tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance are given.

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