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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns candidates with id, name, symbol, type, rank; empty list means no match; and that it is read-only with no API key needed. This enriches beyond annotations, though no disclosure of rate limits or error handling.

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?

A single dense paragraph front-loading purpose, then usage, return format, params, examples. Efficient but could be structured into sections for clarity; no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description covers purpose, usage workflow, return structure, parameter details, and examples. Missing only the rationale parameter explanation, but that is in the schema. Still, it feels fairly complete for the agent's needs.

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 only 25% (only rationale has schema description). The tool description explains type (required, enum), query (required, fuzzy), limit (optional, default 50, max 250) but omits the rationale parameter entirely. This adds meaning for three of four parameters but misses a required one, partially compensating.

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 it resolves fuzzy names/symbols to candidate ids, specifying entity kinds (coin, exchange, people, tags). It distinguishes from siblings by advising to call FIRST before getTickersById, establishing a clear workflow.

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 says 'Call FIRST when you have a bare name or symbol but need an id' and provides a workflow: resolve then pass to getTickersById for price. Also notes no API key required, giving clear usage context.

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