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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the content classes reachable through search (projects, priced tokens, reports, news), but adds nothing about result ordering, matching behavior, or result limits.

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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. The enumeration of searchable content is the only elaboration and it earns its place by widening the query semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient; only the routing guidance versus the specific getter siblings 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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'query' (Name or ticker). The description's 'by name or ticker' merely restates the schema field rather than adding syntax, partial-match, or ticker-format guidance. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 (Search) and resource (ARC AI) plus the entity and content scope: coins/projects by name or ticker, listed projects, tracked tokens with prices, reports, and news. This cross-entity breadth implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower get_coin/get_news siblings, but no sibling is named or contrasted.

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 says what can be searched but gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication that this is the entry point when the entity or its ID is unknown, and no exclusions relative to get_coin, get_news, or scan_token. The agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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