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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful functional context beyond annotations: results are not just raw chains but EVM networks whose shared 0x address is usable with add_wallet, and queries can resolve by name, slug, or numeric network ID.

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 information-dense sentence with no repetition or filler. The lookup purpose is front-loaded and the add_wallet relationship finishes the thought; every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity lookup tool with full parameter documentation and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not spell out default behavior when query is omitted or the exact result fields, but these are minor and unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 for both parameters is 100%, so the description does not need to document them. It adds slight nuance ('Tokenbooks chain slug', 'numeric EVM network ID') and ties evmOnly to the add_wallet use case, but this is not a substantial enrichment over the schema.

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 concrete lookup action ('Find which blockchains support wallet syncing') with three accepted query forms and identifies the relation to add_wallet. This clearly separates it from other list_* siblings focused on wallets, transactions, or workspaces.

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 the tool is a companion/prerequisite to add_wallet, telling the agent that supported EVM networks share a 0x address that can be added. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative chain-lookup tools, but no competing 'list chains' sibling exists among the provided tools.

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