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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing the return payload (titles, one-line summaries, URLs) and by telling the agent it must fetch the page for the actual dated answer, which prevents the agent from treating snippets as authoritative. It does not mention ranking, empty results, or rate behavior.

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, zero filler. The scope enumeration is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction follows immediately after the return description.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the follow-up step, which is what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Minor gap: no word on result ordering or what an empty result set means.

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 description coverage is 100%: the q parameter carries concrete example queries and limit documents its default and ceiling. The description adds no parameter syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Find") and resource ("PumpFYI pages") and enumerates the page types covered (fees, guides, explainers, where-to-trade, comparisons, datasets, news), which makes it easy to separate from structured sibling tools like fee_quote or coin_check. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 "for a question or keyword" implies the discovery use case, and "read the page for its dated short answer" usefully signals this is a first step rather than an answer source. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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