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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond the scope of the search. It does not disclose result format, pagination, matching semantics, or any limitations. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes no extra behavioral insight.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose with no filler. It is appropriately short for a tool with only one required parameter and minimal behavioral nuance.

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?

The definition is minimally viable for a read-only search tool: the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the search returns, and usage guidance relative to the many sibling explorer tools is absent. An agent could invoke it, but may not know how to interpret results or when to choose it over alternatives.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some meaning by indicating the query spans multiple domains, but it does not elaborate on query syntax, expected formats, or how the optional params object is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names four concrete resources (addresses, deposits, intents, vaults), making its scope immediately clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the many single-entity explorer siblings, though it does not explicitly state that it is the cross-entity alternative.

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 implies usage for cross-entity lookup by listing multiple resource types, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over specific explorers like peer_market_explorer_address or peer_market_explorer_deposit. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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