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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that rows are scoped to the selected quote currency, and says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or refresh behavior. Against annotation coverage this is an adequate but unremarkable 3.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sibling reference. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. The routing sentence plus the scope statement make it callable as-is, though it could note that no filters beyond currency/limit are available.

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%, with both parameters documented, including the full allowed-value list for vs_currency and the limit range. The description's mention of 'selected quote currency' maps to vs_currency but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (CoinGecko public chain table rows) with the scoping condition (selected quote currency). It also names the sibling it is not (coingecko_chain), so an agent can distinguish table-listing from single-chain detail without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'Use coingecko_chain for one chain's page details,' which gives both the alternative and the condition that selects it. The choice between a full list and a single-chain page is left to no inference.

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