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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds information they cannot: a result cap of 8 matches, the fields returned per match (chain, contract, price, market cap, id/symbol/name), the empty-result behavior ('No match returns a note'), and the disambiguation rule that contract addresses separate tokens sharing a name or ticker.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, then disambiguation. Slightly redundant, though — the idea that a wallet is not a token appears twice ('a person or wallet trading is not a token' and 'A wallet address is said to be a wallet'), and that second sentence is awkwardly phrased.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly shoulders the burden of describing results: match count limit, per-match fields, and the no-match note. For a one-parameter read-only lookup, nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it 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 the single 'query' parameter, and the description's 'name, ticker or contract address' merely restates the schema wording with examples already present ('pepe', 'SOL'). No additional format or normalization detail is supplied, so the baseline of 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 and resource (finds crypto tokens) plus the accepted lookup keys (name, ticker, contract address). It also carves out the boundary against neighboring tools by noting it 'sets nothing' and that a wallet/trader is not a token, so an agent can distinguish it from set_price_alarm and set_trader_alarm without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'For looking up a token before a price alarm,' which routes the agent to this tool as the prerequisite step for set_price_alarm. It also gives an exclusion ('a person or wallet trading is not a token'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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