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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and 'Changes nothing' merely restates them. The real added value is the return-shape disclosure — three per-name outcomes (found, choose, not_found) plus the per-asset fields and the instruction not to auto-select among ambiguous matches — which is behavior the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb-and-resource, then return shape, then the safety note. No wasted clauses; the parenthetical expansions (crypto or equity, stock/etf/mutual_fund) are compact and load-bearing.

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, yet the description fully specifies what comes back — the three per-name statuses and the five per-asset fields (symbol, name, asset class, kind, onWatchlist). For a one-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret results 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%, so the single parameter ('Asset names or tickers as the member said them, 1 to 20') is already fully documented. The description's 'by name or ticker' adds nothing beyond it and omits the batch cap of 20 that the schema supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('looks up crypto assets, U.S. stocks and ETFs by name or ticker') and immediately establishes its role as the id-resolution entry point ('returns assetId, the id every other tool takes'). An agent can distinguish this from list_watchlist or add_to_watchlist without opening any 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?

Usage context is clear: this is the resolution step that feeds every other tool that needs an assetId, which implicitly sequences it before add_to_watchlist and similar tools. It also gives an explicit disambiguation rule ('ask the member which one, never pick for them'), though it never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-call case.

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