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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns ids, which implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not explicitly disclose the absence of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It adds useful context about asset types but lacks an explicit statement of behavior beyond the listing operation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a practical example. No superfluous words or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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, parameterless list tool, the description provides sufficient context: what assets are listed, what the output looks like (ids), and how the output is used. While it does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., array of objects), the given example and purpose are enough for an agent to call it correctly. Given the low complexity, this is adequately complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters that don't exist. It adds value by mentioning the example id and its purpose, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing further to clarify.

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 clearly states the tool lists assets reachable via the INSTANT lane, specifies the corridors (Tron/USDT-TRC20, BTC, stablecoin), and gives an example id. It explicitly mentions the intended consumer (create_instant_shift), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_onramps. The verb 'list' and resource 'instant assets' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: to obtain asset ids for create_instant_shift. It also distinguishes from the on-chain DEX route, suggesting a clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the provided purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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