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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is backend pending (Q3 2026), which is critical availability information, and describes the return catalog contents. It could mention whether the operation is read-only or requires authentication, but 'List' inherently signals a non-destructive operation.

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 two tight sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second specifies the return fields and adds a crucial timeline note. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what will be listed, what the return catalog contains, and the current backend status. The sibling tools and lack of parameters make this sufficiently contextualized.

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 input schema provides no semantics to clarify. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. No additional value is needed here.

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') with a clear resource ('all available oracle data feeds') and enumerates feed types (price, off-chain event, index), making its purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_price or subscribe by focusing on catalog listing rather than retrieval or subscription.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need an overview of all available feeds and their metadata. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the catalog-oriented phrasing and sibling context provide sufficient guidance.

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