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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds non-obvious value: it discloses the returned fields, states the data is facts/public metrics, and warns that a high score is not a recommendation — a meaningful provenance/disclaimer that goes beyond the annotations.

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 covering purpose, return fields, and a caveat. Front-loaded with the core purpose; the disclaimer sentence earns its place but slightly dilutes the crispness of the opening.

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 read-only, open-world lookup with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough: it covers what can be searched, what is returned, and the key pitfall (symbol collisions). No output schema exists, but the fields are enumerated, so return-value comprehension is handled.

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% and the description enumerates query keys (symbol, name, mint address) that match the query parameter, but it adds no format, syntax, or ambiguity guidance (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching, mint-address format) beyond what the schema already documents. 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?

The description states a specific verb (find) and resource (Solana tokens) with enumerated search keys (symbol, name, mint address) and the exact set of returned fields. It differentiates from siblings such as solana_token_price and solana_token_facts by being the lookup-by-identity entry point.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated search keys, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives (e.g., 'use solana_token_facts for deeper details on a single token'). The warning to verify the mint address is context, not a routing rule.

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