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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: case-insensitive matching and market-cap-descending ordering, which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It says nothing about empty results, pagination behavior, or that the token universe is open-ended.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the matching rule and sort order both earn their place.

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?

For a small two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core matching contract adequately. It is incomplete on the limit parameter, on result-shape expectations (does it return names, addresses, or full token objects?), and on what an empty match looks like.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it clarifies that 'query' is a symbol prefix and is case-insensitive, but never explains 'limit' (default 10, max 20) or the 20-character query cap. Half the parameters remain undifferentiated from the raw schema types.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find tokens') plus the matching rule ('by symbol prefix, case-insensitive') and result ordering ('largest market cap first'), which separates it from single-token lookup siblings like get_token. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'by symbol prefix' implies usage for partial/prefix lookups rather than exact lookups, which weakly routes agents away from get_token. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, so guidance is only implied.

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