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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read operation ('List') but does not disclose error behavior, authentication specifics beyond the api_key parameter, rate limits, or response structure beyond 'a json object'. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting space and undermining conciseness. While the parameter list is brief, the redundancy and lack of structured formatting reduce readability and efficiency.

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 an output schema, but the description only says 'a json object'. For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, the description should clarify usage context, expected results, and potential failure modes. It falls short of providing a complete picture.

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 @param descriptions add minimal value beyond the schema: api_key is clarified, but blockchain_fk and digital_asset_fk are described somewhat tautologically ('The digital_asset_fk for this digital asset'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states it 'List the digital asset's information' based on blockchain_fk and digital_asset_fk, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto_digitalassets by specifying a single-asset lookup rather than a general list.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the description.

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