List monitored Stellar assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of returned data, but since there is no output schema this is mostly return-value context rather than behavioral disclosure; no auth, rate-limit, or ordering/pagination behavior is described.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed immediately by the filtering behavior. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and pagination/filter parameters are documented in the schema. Adequate overall, though it omits default ordering and any note on how limit/offset interact with result size.

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 enums for band and hasFlag, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description's examples ('e.g. CRITICAL', 'e.g. MANIPULATION_CHEAP') restate enum values already present in the schema, adding only marginal value; baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Lists the Stellar assets Keel monitors') and enumerates the returned fields (risk band, band confidence, max safe collateral size, fired flags). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_asset or get_asset_risk, which operate on a single asset.

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 filtering sentence ('Filter by band... or by a single flag... to find risky collateral') gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs sibling guidance and no exclusions (e.g. when to prefer find_asset or compare_assets).

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