What Flowscan shows and which tool to use

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and closed-world semantics, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the mainnet-only rule, output-shaping conventions, and the servedByThisServer=false flag when only notServed items match. It stops short of return-format or rate-limit detail, but the added context is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 imperative 'Start here when unsure' is front-loaded, and each subsequent clause adds distinct information. It is dense but every sentence earns its place; a slight run-on in the notServed/servedByThisServer clause keeps it from being a model of tightness.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so by detailing the page->tool mapping, the notServed list, and the servedByThisServer flag. Combined with the mainnet-only rule, this is complete for an agent to use it correctly, though pagination/size behavior is unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by showing example keywords ('revenue', 'address', 'hip-3') and explaining the filter's dual behavior (matching pages plus matching notServed items), which the schema does not convey.

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 states a precise role: a coverage map from flowscan.xyz pages to tools, plus what is NOT served. It is clearly distinguishable from the 40+ data-retrieval siblings because it is the router/discovery entry point, not a data 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?

'Start here when unsure' gives an explicit when-to-use condition, and enumerating what Flowscan does NOT serve (block/tx lookups, prices) provides when-not guidance that steers the agent away from futile calls. This is exactly the routing guidance a discovery tool needs.

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