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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it explains that the POST is read-only because the query travels in the body, and that the result is 'metadata only' (not token payloads). It stops short of noting rate limits or result-shape limits.

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?

Front-loads the search capability, then layers the example, return scope, and read-only clarification. The trailing raw endpoint reference is slightly redundant but compact overall.

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 compensates by stating the return is metadata only, and pagination is fully covered by the schema's start cursor. Enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; only explicit alternative-routing is missing.

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 query, size, and the start cursor. The description restates a query example but adds no syntax the schema lacks, hitting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 (search) and resource (tokens) plus the query mechanism (Basis Theory query syntax over metadata). It is clearly distinct from a plain listing, though it never names the sibling basis_theory_list_tokens it competes with.

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 mention of 'query syntax over metadata' implies use when filtered retrieval is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to basis_theory_list_tokens for unfiltered listing. Usage is left to inference.

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