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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent understands this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds the behavioral trait that it 'knows the core assets (USDC, USDT, WETH, WBTC) even though they are absent from the token list,' which is useful context beyond the annotations. It also labels the call as 'Free read,' reinforcing the non-mutating nature. There is no contradiction.

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 two crisp sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the special-case knowledge is stated, and guidance is included. The appended SAP MCP execution guidance block is boilerplate automation text that is repeated across tool definitions, so it is not compresses what matters for this tool but does not detract from the essential description.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and gives usage advice. The presence of an output schema means return values need no further enumeration. It does not discuss edge cases like error handling for unknown mints, but with openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter with its type and example values. The description merely restates that the parameter accepts a symbol or mint address, adding no new format or syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 strong verb-resource-object structure: 'Resolve a Sunrise token by symbol or mint address' and clearly enumerates the four return fields (canonical mint, decimals, assetClass, tokenProgram). It distinguishes this from related tools by pointing out that it knows core assets absent from the token list, which differentiates it from sap_sunrise_list_tokens and similar resolution tools like sap_sns_resolve_domain.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use this instead of trusting third-party mint lists.' This gives a direct guidance on preferring it over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling tools like sap_sunrise_list_tokens or jupiter_getTokenInfo as alternatives, so it only covers positive usage context without exclusions.

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