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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only status, case-insensitive substring matching, empty-search fallback, ranking order (curated first, then pool count), symbol non-uniqueness, and the transfer-tax exclusion rule with its exact-address exception. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the routing hint, then behavior. It is a single dense block, and the ranking/edge-case sentences are long but each carries distinct information; a short bulleted break would read better, but there is little dead weight.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned fields (address, symbol, name, decimals, verified, poolCount, depthUsd), the hasMore pagination signal, and the native-coin zero-address convention. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds value beyond it by explaining what an omitted search does and how limit interacts with the hasMore flag, plus the ranking that determines which results arrive first. It stops short of adding format details the schema lacks, but nothing material is missing.

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 (finds tokens on one chain) plus the search keys (symbol, name, address), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_quote and get_price as the consumers of its output. An agent can tell it apart from get_price/get_quote 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?

"Use it whenever you have a ticker or a name instead of an address" is an explicit selection condition that implicitly excludes the address-based siblings. It also resolves the ambiguous case with guidance: prefer the verified token or the one with most depth when a symbol matches several entries.

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