assetfare_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing 'makes a network request' (latency/connectivity implications) and 'never authenticates, signs, submits, or advances a session' — exclusions that matter given session- and auth-oriented siblings. The leading 'Read-only' slightly echoes readOnlyHint, but the rest is genuinely additive.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose, usage routing, and behavioral caveats. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place. The only redundancy is the word 'Read-only' echoing readOnlyHint, which is negligible given the new information packed into the same sentence.

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?

For a 0-parameter read-only status tool with rich annotations, this is nearly complete: purpose, workflow placement, and behavioral exclusions are all covered. The return format is not specified (no output schema exists), but the output is strongly implied by the stated purpose — compatibility status and safety gates — so this is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters with an empty schema (additionalProperties: false), so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to document. No parameter semantics are needed or expected here.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read legacy v1 compatibility status and original-corridor safety gates.' It explicitly names what it is not by routing v2 workflows to assetfare_v2_capabilities, which distinguishes it from the closest sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit positive condition ('Use only before the unversioned Solana-SOL-to-Base/Arbitrum-ETH workflow') and an explicit exclusion with the named alternative ('for every six-chain v2 route use assetfare_v2_capabilities instead'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance with a specific sibling fallback.

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