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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the result ordering (visibility_priority), the default interface threshold of 0, and that negative min_visibility_priority reaches tokens the UI hides. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema alone.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and followed by the refinement path. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to supply purpose, ordering semantics, and hidden-token access, all of which it does. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing (get_token vs list_tokens) keeps it from a 5.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the subtle after_token caveat. The description adds rationale (ambiguity resolution driving ordering) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 situation.

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 ('list canonical Ekubo tokens'), the ordering ('descending visibility_priority'), and the reason for that ordering ('so the preferred token wins an ambiguous symbol'). An agent can distinguish this from generic siblings like get_tokens or get_token purely from the text.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the 'first step for symbol-based swaps' and tells the agent how to widen the search (symbol prefix/suffix via search, hidden tokens via min_visibility_priority). It does not state when to prefer a sibling such as get_token for an exact known address, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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