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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value with provenance and trust caveats (look-alikes, third-party issuers whose supply is unchecked), a 10-match cap, total count and a truncated flag. The ordering between Royerhood-issued and third-party results is implied but the term 'pegproof' is unexplained, leaving some behavioral vagueness.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then result composition, then the truncation contract - each sentence earns its place. Some clauses are dense ('with the look-alikes pegproof knows of') and the unexplained product name costs a little clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: ordering, provenance tiers, result cap, total counts and truncation signaling are all disclosed. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 100% with a single documented parameter ('A ticker (NVDA) or a company name (Nvidia)'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the dual ticker/name lookup mode and ties it to the search target, adding modest confirmation value without introducing new syntax rules.

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 a specific verb plus resource ('find the contract address of a stock token on Robinhood Chain') and the lookup key (ticker or company name), which cleanly separates it from check_address and token_summary.

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 phrase 'before an agent buys it' establishes the pre-trade lookup context, giving clear usage timing. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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