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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned records, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or rate limits, so it adds only modest context on top of the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and its identifying fields front-loaded, followed by the filtering capability. No filler or redundancy.

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 usefully describes the return fields (ticker, token symbol, issuer, chain, trade link) and how filtering works for a simple two-parameter read tool. Pagination behavior for a potentially long listing is the only notable omission.

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 only 50%: 'query' is documented but 'chain' has an enum with no description. The description compensates by explaining what 'query' actually matches against (ticker, symbol or name) and that both filters can be combined ('and/or'), which is meaning beyond the raw 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 specific verb and resource ('Tokenized stocks listed on The River') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent immediately knows this is a catalog listing rather than a valuation or holdings tool. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, but the resource is distinctive enough to separate it from fair_value, strategy_link, trade_link and wallet_holdings.

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 phrase 'Filter by chain and/or a search query' implies the intended usage and that the two filters are combinable, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of what to do when no filters are supplied (all 0 params are optional). Adequate but thin.

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