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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does add useful context: it searches across chains and costs $0.005 USDC. It does not explain whether the payment parameter must be set, how costs are deducted, or any other operational behavior, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The pricing sentence is compact and earns its place by adding a critical cost detail.

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 search tool with an output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers the core search capability and cost. It falls short on payment mechanics and parameter details, and it does not position the tool against its siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that q accepts a name, symbol, or contract address, implies chain is a cross-chain filter, and hints at payment via the $0.005 USDC line. It does not clarify the exact format of chain values, the behavior of limit, or how payment is specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tokens'), and clarifies the search keys (name, symbol, contract address) and scope (across chains). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like token_snapshot or contract_check.

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?

The intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to find tokens by name, symbol, or contract address across chains. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as token_snapshot for detailed token data.

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