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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not burdened with that. It adds useful context that the result is a summary with price and market data, and that this is the identifier-resolution step in a workflow. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, which is a minor remaining gap given a limit parameter exists.

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?

Three short sentences with zero wasted words: purpose, return shape, and workflow guidance are front-loaded in that order. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

A simple two-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations. The description explains the result content even though there is no output schema, and gives the workflow context an agent needs. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the identifier types in prose but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find') and resource ('crypto tokens'), enumerates the three supported identifier types (name, ticker symbol, contract address), and describes the return content ('summaries with price and market data'). It also distinguishes itself from get_token and get_risk_signals, so an agent can tell why this exists separately from those siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first to resolve an identifier before calling get_token or get_risk_signals,' naming the downstream alternatives and the sequencing condition that selects this tool. No inference about when to use it is required.

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