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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source ('platform DB') and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, whether unset defaults are included, ordering, or what the returned structure looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so the purpose appears immediately. The phrasing 'for an agent from the platform DB' is slightly redundant against agentId in the schema but costs only a few 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?

With only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the minimum needed to invoke the tool. It falls short on what a caller receives back (keys only, key/value pairs, nested spec) and on any constraints such as missing configs for an unknown agentId.

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 100%: agentId is documented as 'Agent ID' and chain has an explicit enum description including default ('bsc') and the note that Sepolia is unsupported. The description adds no further meaning about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agent spec/config values') scoped to a single agent, so an agent can tell what it retrieves. It does not name the adjacent siblings actora_config_get or actora_config_set, so the distinction between listing all values and fetching one value must be inferred from 'all'.

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 word 'all' combined with the required agentId implies a bulk-read use case, which vaguely signals when to prefer this over a single-value get. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given and the obvious alternative (actora_config_get) is never mentioned.

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