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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive); the description adds real operational context beyond them: API-key auth requirement, the underlying GET endpoint, pagination via next_offset, omission of null columns, 400 refusal (not empty list) for unsupported chains, and how to read an empty result via meta warnings.

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 core identity and paging change are front-loaded and the Returns block is justified by the absence of an output schema. There is minor redundancy — null-column omission is stated twice — and the historical 'used to return up to 200 rows' note is filler, though it does motivate the paging contract.

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, the description carries the return shape well (chain, facilitators, next_offset, meta, including empty-list diagnostics) plus auth and error semantics. It stops short of enumerating what fields a facilitator row actually contains (address, enriched_at, nonce, gas balance surface only obliquely via parameter text).

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in depth (clamping behavior, default chain ids, next_offset guidance). The description adds the paging contract at a high level but no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already carries — baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: facilitators/relayers seen settling, with their known relayer wallets, per chain. The title and first sentence together make it unmistakably distinct from siblings like list_wallets, list_agents, and list_entity_settlements, which cover different entities.

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?

Usage is implied — you call this to enumerate relayers for a chain — and the `enriched_only` parameter description hints at a 'only fully-read rows' use case. But the description never says when to prefer this over a sibling (e.g. list_wallets or run_sql) or when not to call it; routing is left to inference.

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