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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it is the entry point, it does not support NFTs, it resolves labels and domains, and it reports price, volume, contract address, chain, market cap, and supply 'when available.' This gives the agent useful expectations without repeating annotation data.

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 front-loaded with the most important guidance ('FIRST entry point' and the prediction-market exclusion) before a well-organized bullet list of capabilities. It is somewhat long, but each bullet communicates a distinct lookup capability and the NFT caveat earns its place. No redundant sentences dilute the message.

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 the output schema, the 100% parameter schema coverage, and the read-only/open-world annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main search categories, return-style information, exclusions, and label/domain resolution. A small gap is that the title mentions 'companies' while the description only implies them through 'entities' and the schema's stock mode, but this is minor given the schema already clarifies stock search.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding the meaning of `query` beyond the schema: it can be a token name, symbol, contract address, Nansen label, or a domain such as .eth/.sol. It also clarifies that entity search is part of the tool's scope, complementing the schema's stock-mode note.

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 opens with 'General search tool' and explicitly frames it as the 'FIRST entry point to look up for possible tokens, entities, and addresses related to a query.' It then lists concrete use cases, including token existence checks, token details, entity lookup, Nansen-label resolution, and domain resolution. It also distinguishes itself from prediction_market_lookup by explicitly saying not to use it for prediction markets.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('FIRST entry point'), an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('Do NOT use this tool for prediction markets'), and names the alternative tool ('use prediction_market_lookup instead'). It also adds a useful caveat about NFTs and name collisions, telling the agent to still check this tool when a query relates to a token even though Nansen MCP does not support NFTs.

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