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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: matching is word-bounded, with concrete examples showing that 'button' does not match TON and 'operation' does not match OP.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the word-boundary caveat is delivered with concrete examples. 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?

For a simple, read-only, idempotent tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input, the task, and a key matching behavior. It could be more explicit about the output format, but the phrase 'which crypto assets... refers to' adequately implies a list of detected assets.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'text', with 0% description coverage, so the description bears the burden. It clarifies that the input is a piece of text and gives word-boundary examples that help an agent understand what kind of string to pass. It does not specify length limits or case sensitivity, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: identifying which crypto assets a piece of text refers to. It is specific about the resource (crypto assets) and input (text), though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like news_recent or catalog_search. The intended use is implied by the description, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided.

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