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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real value by disclosing the shape of the payload (slug, ticker, network, confirmations, extra-id name) and the availability flag. Since no output schema exists, this is the agent's only source of return-value information, though it says nothing about ordering, size, or whether availability can change over time.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope comes first, then the field list. 'Extra-id name' is mildly jargonish, but every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it and what it will receive. What is missing — field types, enumeration of networks, whether unavailable assets are included or filtered — is minor for a simple catalog tool.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 a specific resource (assets) and its scope, namely 'every asset the swap form knows', and enumerates what each entry carries. The verb is only implicit ('list'), and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_routes or get_limits, but the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to pick the right tool.

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 only implied: a zero-parameter catalog read is self-evidently a lookup tool, and 'which assets exist / are available right now' is the obvious trigger. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_routes or get_limits.

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