filter_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about read-only safety, filter combination logic, default sorting, pagination, or result format. The single sentence provides zero insight into how the tool behaves.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but the phrase 'various criteria' is filler that adds no value over the tool name. It is not effectively front-loaded because it omits any concrete detail that would help an agent understand the tool quickly.

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?

This tool has a complex schema with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The description is completely inadequate—it does not explain how filters and rankings interact, what the response looks like, or any usage semantics. It is far below the minimum viable for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the input schema already documents every parameter (limit, offset, phrase, tokens, filters, rankings, statsType, excludeTokens) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Filter') and the resource ('tokens'), but 'by various criteria' is vague and does not specify what the tool actually returns or how it differs from sibling tools like get_tokens or get_latest_tokens. It lacks the field-level specificity seen in better descriptions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools such as filter_pairs or get_tokens.

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