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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds context annotations cannot: the cost model (25 free calls/day, then $0.01 USDC via x402) and the disambiguation behavior (ranking by verification and liquidity, copycat warnings). That is exactly the extra behavioral context the structured fields lack.

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 the usage directive, then purpose, then inputs, cost, and a docs pointer — logical ordering with little waste. The usage sentence and the purpose sentence overlap somewhat on the copycat rationale, costing it a point.

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 return-value burden and does describe the outcome (real token address, ranked matches, copycat warning) plus cost. It stops short of specifying the response shape or how many candidates are returned, which is a minor remaining gap for a resolver tool.

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 single parameter already documents 'ticker, name or address' with the same BONK/Jupiter/USDC examples. The description's Inputs block and example simply restate the schema, adding no new syntax or format meaning, 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 precise verb+resource: 'Finds the real token address for a ticker or name' and adds the distinguishing behavior (ranks matches by verification/liquidity, warns on copycats). This clearly separates it from siblings like token_safety, tokens, and token_account, which an agent could otherwise confuse with resolver work.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Run whenever a user names a token by ticker or name') plus a strong when-not directive ('Never pick a token address from memory'), grounded in the reason tickers aren't unique. It stops short of naming alternative siblings (e.g. token_safety for risk checks), so it's clear but not fully routing.

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