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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is already covered. With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return contract by naming the fields (native asset, anchors, capability list) an agent will get 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?

Two sentences: the payload contents first, the calling instruction second. No filler, and the parenthetical capability list is load-bearing rather than decorative.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the fields returned and the vocabulary of capabilities, which is everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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, which is the baseline 4 case. There is nothing parameter-related the description could add, and schema coverage is 100%.

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 resource (the chains Chord serves) and enumerates exactly what it returns: native asset, anchors, and per-chain capabilities. The capability vocabulary (overview, tokens, trades, candles, wallet PnL, smart money, holders, LP, quote, swap) makes it unmistakable against siblings like chord_status or chord_overview.

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?

'Call this first when unsure what a chain supports' gives an explicit trigger condition for invoking it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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