get_supported_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return ('Each asset includes source/destination token IDs and types'), which is genuinely helpful for a listing tool, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, caching, or that the list may vary as bridge routes change.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return shape and the optional filter. Slight redundancy between 'Optionally filter by source chain' and the schema's own wording, but nothing wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by summarizing what each returned asset contains (source/destination token IDs and types). For a read-only, two-optional-param lookup tool this is nearly sufficient; a note on whether results are static or change with bridge state would close the gap.

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 both the chain and symbol parameters are already fully documented, including the enum values and the 'omit to show all routes' semantics. The description's 'Optionally filter by source chain' merely restates the chain parameter and adds no new semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List assets supported by the Aramid Bridge') and scopes it to routes between Voi and Algorand, which is far more useful than a generic listing statement. It does not explicitly name the sibling bridge_txn or contrast itself against it, so an agent must infer the read-vs-execute distinction from the word 'List'.

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 clause 'Optionally filter by source chain' implies when to narrow results, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus bridge_txn or what to do with the returned assets. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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