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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful scoping: it returns a profile with cross-system identifiers and warns that tickers collide across chains. It does not describe error/ambiguous-symbol handling for get_asset itself, but the sibling redirect covers the main caveat.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states scope and payload, the second gives the use case, and the third provides the ambiguity caveat and alternative. All content is front-loaded.

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-only resource lookup, this is sufficient: it defines the input, the use case, the output fields, and the relevant alternative when ambiguity is possible. No return schema exists, but the description names the main returned components.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that the symbol is a ticker, that tickers can collide, and that this tool is the profile-of-record lookup for that ticker. It could add accepted formats or examples, but the single parameter is adequately contextualized.

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 identifies a concrete deliverable ('core profile by symbol') and itemizes the payload (name, category, CoinGecko id, contract addresses, chains). It also separates itself from resolve_ticker by stating it is the starting point for disambiguating a ticker, so an agent can distinguish it from lookalike 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Start here when you have a ticker and need to be sure which asset it refers to') and names the exact alternative for ambiguous symbols ('resolve_ticker is the tool that says so instead of guessing'). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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