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

The annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower and there is no contradiction. The description adds behavior beyond those annotations: the pagination contract ("When has_more is false the response is the complete answer and no paging is needed") and input-normalization behavior (mapping user phrasing to a canonical "ticker.network" id). This is operational context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct job: core purpose, parameter capability summary, call-order directive with rationale, and pagination terminal condition. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, search/filter capabilities, the critical "call before quoting" sequencing, and the pagination stop condition — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Given the rich schema, full annotations, and this context, the description is complete for a read-only lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by synthesizing the parameters into user-intent terms — "Search by ticker, name or network, filter by network, by fiat or crypto, and by whether a fixed rate is possible" — and by explaining why q requires disambiguation (same ticker on several networks). It earns a 4 for that synthesis, though it does not add syntax details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "Find the assets ChangeNOW can exchange" — and adds a second distinct purpose: "turn what the user said into a canonical asset id." It differentiates from the sibling tools by introducing the canonical-id concept ("ticker.network"), which is the identity that quote/swap/status tools depend on, so an agent can tell this discovery/resolution tool apart from get_asset or quote_swap.

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 gives explicit directional guidance: "Always call this before quoting," backed by the reasoning that the same ticker exists on several networks and only the canonical id identifies one. It also provides a concrete stop condition for paging ("When has_more is false the response is the complete answer and no paging is needed"). It stops short of a 5 because it never names the alternative tool explicitly (quote_swap) and gives no when-not-to-use cases.

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