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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive query. The description adds value by specifying the scope (addresses, transactions, blocks, tokens, ENS names) and that it operates on a specific EVM chain, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or error handling.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core action and then provide usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool's low complexity (2 string params) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably defines response structure), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and when to use it. However, it could benefit from mentioning whether the search returns multiple results or how to interpret ambiguous queries.

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 0% with no descriptions for the two parameters. The description provides only a template ('Search [chain] for [query]') and examples, without specifying allowed chain values or the format of query. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 it performs universal block-explorer search across addresses, transactions, blocks, tokens, and ENS-style names on an EVM chain. The template 'Search [chain] for [query]' and examples clarify the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_within' or 'get_address', relying on the agent to infer the difference.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you don't know yet whether the input is an address / hash / token symbol.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool instead of specific getters. It does not mention situations where it should not be used, but the context is clear enough for the intended use case.

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