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

With no annotations, the description still discloses that this is a lookup returning registry rows or a single record with ids and reviewed metadata, which signals a read-only retrieval tool. It also flags deprecation and the sunset date, which is unusually useful context. It stops short of stating read-only guarantees explicitly or describing pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, and the phrase "Deprecated alias" is slightly ambiguous about whether this tool or trade_guard is the deprecated one.

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 resource scope, then usage, then return shape, then the deprecation note — a sensible ordering with no filler. The deprecation sentence is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity ("Deprecated alias: prefer trade_guard with op \"search_registry\""), costing a bit of clarity.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the essential pieces: what is searched, when to use it, what comes back, and that it is being retired. What is missing is modest — no statement about result volume/paging, whether the deprecated tool behaves identically to trade_guard op search_registry, or any auth/permission expectation.

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 100%, so every one of the 8 parameters (kind enum, query, limit, offset, category, chain_id, is_active, verify_onchain) is already documented in the schema. The description adds contextual meaning about the ids the search surfaces but no parameter-level syntax, defaults, or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the exact resource families (symbols, feeds, protocols, stablecoins, protocol risk parameters, RWA instruments/context, settlement-evidence packs, setup recommendations) and explicitly separates itself from price/health siblings. An agent can tell it apart from get_oracle_price, get_oracle_health, and verify_evidence without opening any schema.

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 a positive use case ("discover the exact ids a price, safety or execution tool expects"), an explicit exclusion ("Do not use it to read live prices or health"), and a named alternative plus deprecation date ("prefer trade_guard with op \"search_registry\"... Removed on 2027-01-06"). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative triad.

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