get_coin_issuance_blockchains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which adds context about access control. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with pagination and a required UUID), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and access requirement but misses details on behavior, response format, and how it differs from siblings. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in providing full context for effective tool use.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit', 'offset', and 'uuid'. The description does not add any additional meaning or semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'uuid' relates to coins or the structure of returned blockchains). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get the issuance blockchains on which the coin is issued.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('issuance blockchains'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_blockchains' or 'get_blockchain_details', which could provide similar blockchain-related data, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 provides some usage context by stating that it requires the 'ultra plan or higher,' which implies a prerequisite for access. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_blockchains' for general blockchain data or 'get_coin' for coin details), nor does it provide explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. The guidance is implied but incomplete.

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