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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful scoping qualifier 'source-verified' (i.e., only verified contracts appear), but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior for what is clearly a list endpoint.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('source-verified') is front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than deliberately lean.

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 no output schema, an undocumented limit parameter, and no indication of what fields a roster entry contains or how the result is bounded, the definition leaves too much for an agent to guess before calling.

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% and the single parameter (limit, default 25) is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, so an agent learns nothing about how to constrain the roster size or what the default returns.

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 names the resource ('roster of source-verified Wanchain contracts'), which conveys a listing of verified contracts. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_verified_contract (singular lookup). An agent can guess the purpose but must infer the list-vs-detail relationship.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this roster versus get_verified_contract, get_contract_creation, or get_chain_coverage. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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