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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search spans 'all monitored exchanges' and that the query parameter is required, which is useful scope context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'search'), how results are ranked, whether pagination exists, or what the return shape looks like. Adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. The required-parameter note is compact. Minor opportunity to fold the requirement into a more natural sentence, but structure is efficient.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it searches, the scope, and the required input. It falls short on return format, result limits, and how it relates to token-research siblings. Complete enough to call correctly, but not to choose confidently among alternatives.

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 the schema already documents both parameters including examples for query and the optional exchange filter. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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) and resource (tokens) with scope (across all monitored exchanges). Distinguishes from price-related siblings like get_price, but does not explicitly contrast with get_token_intel or get_token_research, which also concern tokens. Clear enough for an agent to know this is a lookup tool.

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 description states the required parameter but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies this is for symbol/name lookup, but an agent cannot tell when to use this instead of get_token_intel or get_token_research. Minimum viable but with a clear gap for a tool with many token-related siblings.

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