list_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List') and explicitly states it's an offline tool with no API call, which is valuable behavioral context about performance and network usage that wouldn't be in annotations anyway. It doesn't mention error conditions or response format details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first explains exactly what the tool returns, and the second provides crucial behavioral context about it being offline. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it lists) comes first.

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 zero-parameter, read-only information tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned and the offline nature. It doesn't specify the exact return format (array of objects? structure?) which would be helpful given no output schema, but otherwise gives the agent enough to understand when and how to use it effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('List') and resource ('blockchain networks AlgoVoi supports'), with explicit details about what information is included (asset IDs, decimals, CAIP-2 identifiers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all payment/verification related, making this a pure information retrieval tool.

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 clear context that this is an 'Offline tool — no API call,' which helps the agent understand when to use it versus making network requests. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the distinction from payment/verification tools is obvious from context.

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