koios_policy_asset_mints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to mention that results are paginated via the limit/offset parameters, despite saying 'all' events. It also doesn't clarify what an 'event' contains, which is a behavioral gap given there is no output schema.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the shape of returned events (e.g., amounts, tx hashes, timestamps), which is needed for complete understanding. However, the schema-rich input parameters partially compensate, making this a mediocre but not deficient description.

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%, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. All parameters (limit, order, offset, select, _asset_policy) are already well documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('all mint/burn events for assets under a specific policy'). It distinguishes from siblings like policy_asset_list (which lists assets) and asset_history (which covers individual asset history).

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: this tool is for mint/burn events at the policy level, which implies appropriate use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the policy-level scoping helps differentiate it from similar tools.

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