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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return concept (CoinGecko ids), but omits details like matching behavior, result ordering, limit enforcement, and pagination. 'Search' implies a safe read operation, and the return purpose is useful, but more transparency would help.

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 concise sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence clarifies the tool's role in a broader workflow.

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 simple two-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and main parameter. However, it omits what 'limit' does, how results are matched/ordered, and what the exact return payload looks like beyond 'CoinGecko ids'. These gaps make it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' accepts a name or symbol, which is meaningful. However, the optional 'limit' parameter is not described at all, leaving its meaning and effect undocumented. Partial compensation keeps it at the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Search cryptocurrencies'), the target resource ('cryptocurrencies'), the search dimensions ('by name or symbol'), and the result purpose ('Returns CoinGecko ids for use in other tools'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on pricing, conversion, portfolios, and top/trending lists.

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 phrase 'for use in other tools' gives the agent a clear situational signal: this is a lookup/prerequisite step before using other CoinGecko-dependent tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to route the agent correctly.

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