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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses the result shape (each hit names the next tool and the id to pass) and a unit caveat ('Stake amounts in results are whole ADA'). It does not say what happens on zero or ambiguous matches, nor how the 1-20 limit affects breadth, so it stops short of a 5.

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, all load-bearing: entity scope first, usage rule second, then the result-contract and unit caveat. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining what results contain and what to do next. Remaining gap: nothing about zero-result or multi-match behavior, which matters for a fuzzy name search over nine entity types.

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% and the schema already documents both `query` (name, ticker, $handle, address, pool id, policy id, tx hash, block height, epoch) and `limit`. The description restates the same input vocabulary without adding format guidance (e.g., matching behavior, case sensitivity) and never mentions the limit parameter, so the baseline 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 ('Find') and enumerates the exact resource types (token, liquidity pool, NFT collection, stake pool, ADA Handle, address, transaction, block, epoch) plus the keying options (name, ticker, identifier). This clearly separates it from single-entity lookups like get_token, get_pool, or get_transaction.

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?

'Use this first whenever you have a name or ticker rather than an exact id' gives an explicit when-to-use rule and implicitly names the alternative (the get_* tools) by contrasting names/tickers with exact ids. The follow-up sentence explains the payoff of doing so, which removes ambiguity about sequencing.

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