List restricted interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from the cp0x monitor and cover 'declared or observed' restrictions, which is useful provenance, but it explains neither what those two categories mean nor whether data is live or cached.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint second; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though it could have used the second sentence to name the alternative tool instead of restating the monitor's role.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what it lists and where the data comes from. It omits any indication of result shape (interface name, jurisdiction, restriction type) or volume, so an agent still cannot anticipate what comes back.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (ISO-3166 alpha-2 with pattern and maxLength), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces 'in a country' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it – the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List DeFi interfaces') scoped to a country and to restriction status, which distinguishes it reasonably well from check_interface_restrictions. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling or say how the two differ, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives a usage context ('identifying which interfaces the cp0x monitor reports as restricted'), which implies when to call it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names check_interface_restrictions as the alternative for per-interface lookups, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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