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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does reveal the return payload (ids and market cap rank) and positions the tool as a resolver. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, result limits, matching behavior for partial queries, or what happens when no coins match.

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 sentences, no filler. The core function is front-loaded, the return value is stated, and the usage trigger is given. Every sentence contributes.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the output, and the use case. It lacks examples or result-count details, but the integration hint (passing ids to other tools) makes the tool's role clear in the broader sibling toolset.

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%, and the schema already explains the query parameter as 'Name or symbol, at least two characters.' The description restates 'by name or symbol' but adds value by explaining the purpose of the id ('to pass to the other tools'). 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'), a resource ('coins'), and the search criteria ('by name or symbol'). It also specifies the key output ('CoinGecko ids ... with market cap rank'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve profiles or market context.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when a name is ambiguous or you need the id.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the implied contrast with other tools.

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