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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds what the response actually contains (addresses, allowlists, locks, expiries). It doesn't mention auth requirements or pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, then the returned facets and the usage triggers. No filler or repetition of the title/annotations.

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 parameters, a rich annotation set, and no output schema, the definition supplies exactly what an agent needs: what is listed and when to reach for it. Nothing material is absent.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 verb ('List') and a precise resource ('this account's published tables') and enumerates the returned facets (addresses, field allowlists, locks, expiries). The 'published' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling muninn_table_list, which lists tables generally.

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?

Gives three concrete trigger conditions ('what data of theirs is public', 'which tables are published', 'wants the URL of a feed again'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to rule out, so it isn't a full 5.

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