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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the result set is limited to indexed trending/newest tokens, and the audit verdict is cached and present only 'where one exists', warning the agent that data can be partial.

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?

One sentence with an em-dash aside, front-loading the subject matter before the usage hint. Well organized, though the parenthetical about trending/newest is slightly long for the payload it carries.

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 it does list pool, price and cached audit verdict. Chain coverage caveats remain vague ('May be omitted while one chain's directory is indexed'), but nothing essential for calling the tool 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains the chain enum and that an empty query returns the trending list. The description restates the same name/symbol/address semantics without adding syntax or format detail, matching the baseline 3.

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) plus resource (token) and narrows the corpus to the xroot.dev directory — trending and newest indexed tokens on an EVM chain. It also names the returned fields (pool, price, cached audit verdict), which separates it cleanly from siblings like audit_token or check_token_tax.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: resolve which of several same-named tokens a user means, explicitly positioned before auditing it, which routes the agent toward audit_token as the follow-up. It offers no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives for the lookup itself, so it stops just short of a 5.

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