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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It self-declares "read-only," which is the most important trait, but says nothing about result caps, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements for a search that can return multiple candidates.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability followed by the usage caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

For a simple one-param search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and input forms adequately. A brief note on result handling (multiple candidates returned) is the only meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented `query` param. It does so by enumerating accepted input forms (name, symbol, contract address), which is meaningful guidance the schema lacks, though it omits length/format constraints.

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) plus resource (Robinhood Chain tokens) and the accepted key types (name, symbol, contract address). It differentiates implicitly from research/deep-dive siblings by framing this as candidate resolution, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 to resolve a symbol to candidate contracts; symbols are not unique" gives a clear usage context and a caveat that shapes expectations. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for when a single resolved token is needed.

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