List public launch collateral tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that chainId becomes required when multiple chains are active, but says nothing about pagination, auth, or result size for an open-world listing.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the returned-field list and the chainId condition front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-optional-parameter read tool the description covers the one non-obvious behavior; the only minor gap is the absence of any hint about how this relates to sibling chain/contract tools.

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 single chainId parameter is documented identically in the schema ('Optional only when exactly one chain is active; required when multiple chains are active'). The description restates rather than extends that, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb and resource ('List public launch collateral tokens') and even enumerates the returned fields (symbol, address, decimals, chainId), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings like problee_list_chains or problee_get_contracts, which keeps it from 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 only usage guidance is the conditional rule for chainId ('optional only when exactly one chain is active'), which is invocation guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. It never says when to reach for this tool instead of problee_list_chains or problee_get_contracts, so selection is left to inference.

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