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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the governing router, the chain, and that results carry contract addresses and decimals, telling the agent what kind of data comes back.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the enumerated asset types and return payload following in a natural order. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the brief mention of contract addresses and decimals usefully signals the return payload. Combined with the domain scoping and a fully documented input schema, it covers what an agent needs, though it says nothing about pagination or result volume behavior.

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% and all three parameters (limit, query, category) are documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description adds no filtering syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (stock tokens) and pins down the exact domain: tokens tradable through the Arcus Spot Router on Robinhood Chain. It also enumerates what the resource covers (stocks, ETFs, commodities, crypto), which cleanly separates it from sibling get_stock_token_price.

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 domain framing implies this is the discovery/enumeration call and that get_stock_token_price is the pricing call, but the description never states when to use this tool over its siblings or any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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