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. It does disclose the search types and expected return fields (price, change, holders, mcap, liquidity), but it omits details like whether it is strictly read-only, rate limits, or result sorting. The description is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral aspects understated given the absence of annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes the search scope and return fields without unnecessary fluff, making every word count.

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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately lists the returned fields (live price, 24h change, holders, mcap, liquidity) and the search mechanism. It does not explain edge cases like zero results or exact matching behavior, but for a simple search tool with two parameters, it covers the essential contextual needs for an agent to decide invocation.

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 only 50%, with 'query' lacking a schema description. The description compensates by explaining that the query can be a symbol, name, or address fragment. The 'limit' parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds the necessary semantic meaning for the otherwise undocumented parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'tokens on Robinhood Chain' with explicit search dimensions (symbol, name, 0x address fragment). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_token by indicating it returns search matches with multiple fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this is the same search used in the terminal's popup, implying a general token search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still provides enough situational context.

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