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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact vs ambiguous=true return contract and the explicit instruction never to guess between colliding symbols. It omits any note on the limit parameter's effect or failure behavior for unknown queries.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation, then the ambiguity contract, then the usage trigger. No filler and each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values (single slug vs ambiguous flag with candidates). It is nearly complete for a 2-param read-only resolver, with only the limit parameter left unexplained.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain what the query accepts (symbol, $cashtag, name, slug), which is genuinely additive over a bare string, but the limit parameter (1-10) is never mentioned anywhere.

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 (resolve/turn into) and resource (Token Command Center slugs) and enumerates accepted input forms (symbol, $cashtag, name, slug). This clearly separates it from siblings like tc_get_token or tc_search_tokens, which retrieve rather than normalize identifiers.

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?

"Call before a digest when the user names a token" gives a concrete trigger tied to a named sibling workflow (tc_get_token_digest). It also tells the agent what to do on ambiguity (don't guess, surface all candidates), but it never names an alternative tool for cases where resolution fails.

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