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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the fields returned and that the result also flags which chains Chord trades on, a cross-domain behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the enumeration and the 'call this first' routing instruction are both front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the coverage scope (every chain MoltNode serves). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot carry parameter meaning; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead spends its words on the shape of the result.

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 (list) and resource (chains) and enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, chainId, family, native coin, endpoint), plus the extra signal of which chains Chord trades on. The MoltNode/Chord duality is unmistakable against siblings like chord_find_token or get_balance.

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?

'Call this first for valid chain slugs' gives an explicit ordering/prerequisite rule, telling the agent this is the discovery entry point. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative tool, but none of the siblings plausibly substitutes for it.

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