List NFT collections

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 known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it scans both kiosks and direct-owned objects, deduplicates, and returns counts. This tells the agent what data sources are covered and what output shape to expect. It does not disclose pagination or error behavior, but the added context is sufficient.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and behavioral detail in the second. The third sentence 'Backed by GraphQL' adds little decision-relevant information and is arguably expendable, keeping this from a 5. Overall, it is tight and readable.

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 two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (deduplicated collection types with counts) and coverage scope (kiosks plus direct-owned objects). It omits only minor details such as ordering or empty-result behavior, which are not essential for correct invocation.

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 address and network both documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating the wallet ownership context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Get a lightweight summary of NFT collections owned by a wallet.' The detail about returning deduplicated collection types with counts distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nfts, which likely returns individual NFTs. The scope is clear and immediately actionable.

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 it: when the agent needs a wallet's NFT collection summary rather than individual NFTs or full object listings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_nfts or list_owned_objects, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Context is clear but exclusion guidance is missing.

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