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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds context annotations cannot: it is free on testnet, capped at 5 hits, returns relevance scores and matched-field labels, and refuses to guess on no match. The worked example further reveals the exact response shape.

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 cost and purpose, and nearly every sentence carries new information (caveat, routing, no-match, example). It is a single dense paragraph, slightly overstuffed with a full JSON example, 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully covers the return shape, the field meanings (score, matched), and the failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call it and to know what to do with the result.

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%, so both parameters are already documented including the 1-5 limit range. The description adds value beyond the schema by framing 'query' as a plain-English question and showing a concrete request/response pair with limit=3, though it doesn't mention the 200-char or pattern constraints the schema enforces.

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 the verb and resource precisely: free-text keyword search over a human-verified Ledger of protocols, platforms, wallets and stablecoins. It also bounds the output (up to 5 matching row NAMES), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_status_detail that return actual answers.

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?

Explicitly says 'It returns names, not answers: call get_status or get_status_detail with a returned name' — naming the alternatives and the condition that selects them. Also states the no-match behavior (result="none", never a guess), removing any ambiguity about fallback guessing.

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