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

With no annotations, the description reveals that the index is curated and excludes spam copycats, that results are ranked, and that obscure collections may return nothing. It also explains the disambiguation behavior with the 'Normies' example. This goes beyond the operation to set expectations about result quality and failure mode.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose, output, behavior, usage/fallback. No filler or repetition; front-loaded with the most important 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?

For a simple 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what it does, what it returns (contract, floor, holders, supply), when to use it, and how to handle no results. It is self-sufficient.

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 covers the query parameter as the collection name, but the description adds that the tool resolves the name to a contract, uses a curated index, and disambiguates similar-sounding names to the few that matter. This enriches the bare parameter definition with purpose and matching behavior.

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 the tool resolves a collection name to the correct contract via CoinGecko's curated NFT index, with a specific output. It clearly distinguishes from sibling NFT tools by positioning itself as the pre-pricing/judging name-resolution step.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('before pricing or judging a collection you only have a name for') and what to do if it fails ('if it returns nothing, the collection is obscure — fall back to web_search for the address'). This is clear guidance with a named alternative.

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