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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'search', implying read-only behavior, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as result format, pagination, or error handling. This is minimal transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resources, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose. However, it does not explain what the result set looks like or how limit affects results, leaving some gaps for complete understanding.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (query and limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying that the query can be by 'name, promo code, or feature', which clarifies the semantic scope beyond the schema's generic 'exchange, wallet, tool, feature, or promo code'.

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 specifies the verb 'search' and lists the resource types (exchanges, wallets, analytics tools, crypto cards) and search criteria (name, promo code, feature). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getReferralCode and listDiscounts.

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 description implies usage (when you need to search for crypto-related items) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making it adequate but lacking decision support.

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