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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: the tool is 'Called through their seat; their data comes back as it is,' indicating an external dependency and raw passthrough behavior. It also reinforces that mutating operations refuse. This adds meaningful transparency without contradicting the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The additional sentences about the MCP server, read-only nature, and listing URL provide useful context, though the URL and 'live seat on The Wall' phrasing add some noise. Overall it is compact and reasonably structured, with only minor redundancy.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, and external passthrough. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return format, result shape, or pagination behavior. Since the description carries the burden for return-value expectations in the absence of an output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description's 'name, symbol, or mint address' roughly mirrors the schema's 'Name, ticker, or mint' for q, adding little new meaning. The authCode parameter is already well described in the schema. The description does not need to compensate, so 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Search tokens by name, symbol, or mint address.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'orbitx__search' or from related tools like 'orbitx__orbitx_get_token' and 'orbitx__orbitx_screen_tokens', so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage: use this tool to search tokens by name, symbol, or mint. It also provides broad context that this is a read-only tool and that write operations refuse. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as orbitx__orbitx_get_token or orbitx__orbitx_screen_tokens, so the routing decision 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.