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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviour beyond them: results are fuzzy nearest matches rather than exact hits, gaps are reported with the nearest alternatives available, and the candidate pool is 112 rated economies — exactly the sort of surprise an agent needs warned about.

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 three-mode structure is sound and front-loaded with the primary mode, but the prose is a dense run-on laced with undefined domain jargon ('loot', 'economy', 'spec', 'a-lot') that forces re-reading. Several clauses earn their place; the vocabulary does not.

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 and does so: example specs, fit ratings with reasoning, and identified gaps with near alternatives. It is nearly sufficient for a four-parameter read-only search tool, losing a point only because the rating vocabulary and the undefined 'loot' notion leave residual ambiguity about what a returned record actually 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 coverage is 100%, and the description enriches `query` by insisting on the person's own words as spoken, which is stronger than the schema's 'What the person wants, in a few words'. However, `fit` and `limit` are never mentioned in the description, so two of four parameters carry no added meaning — 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?

The description gives a concrete verb and resource ('Find an economy to start from') and clearly splits behaviour by parameter: `query` returns nearest worked examples plus fit ratings, `name` returns one whole spec, neither lists all examples. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, so an agent cannot distinguish it from xsolana_check/xsolana_review on description alone, but the core operation is unambiguous.

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?

It states the three invocation modes and, notably, gives iterative guidance ('Call it again with the words of any part that looks impossible: the answer is a nearest version to offer, not a dead end'), which tells the agent how to recover from a failed match. What is missing is any exclusion or explicit contrast with the sibling check/review tools.

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