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

With no annotations, 'Public read' usefully communicates both read-only behavior and public accessibility, while 'off-chain' and central_plans establish data location and provenance. The statement that plans have the same structure as on-chain plans adds useful return behavior, although response-envelope and error behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the operation and its distinguishing scope, then cover output and access. There is no filler and no unnecessary repetition of individual parameter documentation.

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?

Together with the fully documented schema, the description covers the resource, chain and ID scope, plan output and structural compatibility, and public-read behavior, which is nearly enough to select and invoke this simple list tool. Without an output schema, it could still clarify whether plans are embedded per agent or returned separately and what the paginated response contains.

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?

All five optional parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults, the page-size maximum, and example filter formats, so the high-coverage baseline applies. The description adds no further semantics, such as whether multiple filters combine with AND or how comma-separated capabilities are matched.

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 opening verb and resource are explicit: it lists centralized agents, then narrows them to source central, off-chain records with negative IDs. The explicit 'NOT on-chain NFTs' clause distinguishes it from the identity and other on-chain siblings.

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 off-chain and negative-ID scope, together with the exclusion of on-chain NFTs, provides a clear selection context and when-not signal. It stops short of naming the appropriate sibling for on-chain agents or explaining when this tool's plan results should be used instead of the subscription-plan tools.

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