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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'cursor pagination,' which tells the agent that results are paginated with a cursor, and it lists the specific data fields returned. It does not contradict annotations. This adds value by clarifying the output structure beyond the safety flags.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently lists the returned fields and pagination. It is concise and front-loads the key content (fields) before mentioning the contract type and pagination. It could be slightly improved with a separate mention of parameters, but it is not verbose.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a list of returned fields and mentions pagination, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response structure (e.g., JSON object shape) or the 'limit' parameter's behavior and default. Without an output schema, the agent may be uncertain about the exact format of the response, and the missing limit explanation is a notable gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It implicitly covers 'address' (as the token contract) and 'cursor' (through 'cursor pagination'), but it completely omits the 'limit' parameter, its default value, and how it controls the number of transfers returned. The description does not explicitly map parameters to their purposes, leaving the agent unsure about limit's role.

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 returns specific fields (token symbol, decimals, transfer_count, last transfer time, recent transfers) for a Wanchain token contract, and mentions cursor pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tokens, which would list multiple tokens, and get_address_activity, which focuses on address actions. The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are explicit.

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 implies this is for querying a specific token contract by address, and it mentions pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tokens (for enumerating tokens) or get_address_activity (for address-centric queries). There is no 'when not to use' or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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