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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful result semantics by stating that results identify EVM networks whose shared 0x address can be added with add_wallet, and it clarifies that the query can be a name, slug, or EVM ID. It does not disclose pagination, default behavior when no query is given, or response size, but for a simple lookup with these annotations this is acceptable.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then covers query formats and the result's relationship to add_wallet. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the title.

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, read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool finds, the accepted query forms, the EVM filtering concept, and how results connect to add_wallet. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the output schema covers return shape, so no critical operational detail is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying 'Tokenbooks chain slug' rather than just 'slug', and by explaining that the query can be a 'numeric EVM network ID'. It does not elaborate on evmOnly beyond what the schema already states, but the added specificity for query formats raises it slightly above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find which blockchains support wallet syncing') and lists the three query formats (name, slug, EVM network ID). It also distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings by tying the results to add_wallet, so an agent can tell it apart from list_wallets or get_server_info.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to discover supported chains for wallet syncing, optionally filtering by EVM networks, and before adding a shared 0x address via add_wallet. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the integration note provides enough directional guidance.

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