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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that names, symbols, tags and method names are author-supplied and wrapped as untrusted, which affects how an agent should treat the results.

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 compact paragraph, front-loaded with what is searched and followed by return fields and the untrusted-data caveat. Slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns (match type, name, symbol, address/hash, verification status) and does so. Pagination via limit/cursor is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap but not a blocker.

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 the schema fully documents query, limit and cursor. The description only illustrates query formats ("pepe", hash, address), adding marginal value over the schema's own enumeration. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search/find) and enumerates the resource types it covers: addresses, tokens, contracts, transactions, blocks. This clearly distinguishes it from the entity-specific siblings like explorer_address and explorer_token, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by the example query forms ("pepe", a hash or an address), which shows when the tool is appropriate, but it never states when to prefer a sibling such as explorer_address or get_transaction for a known identifier, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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