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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the payment/authentication model: 0.005 USDC via x402 with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, or API-key access with no per-call cost. However, it does not describe read-only behavior, result characteristics, pagination semantics, or any limits beyond what the schema implies.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access/payment note is separated and clearly bracketed. It is compact for the amount of payment information conveyed, though the access block is somewhat verbose.

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?

The description covers the access model and basic search target, and the schema fully documents parameters. But with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around when to choose this tool over siblings and what the result set 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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only loosely maps to search_type by mentioning names, parameters, and description keywords, without adding syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics 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: searching signal names, parameters, or description keywords. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby alternatives such as list_signals, match_signals, get_signal, or query_signal_behavior.

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 implies a search use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_signals, match_signals, get_signal, kb_search, or query_signal_behavior. There are no stated exclusions or routing conditions.

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