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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses graceful degradation ("a section whose read fails comes back empty rather than failing the call"), fallback match rules (closed markets only when nothing else matched; did_you_mean when no token matched), and that `url` fields are vike.io paths.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose before any detail, and with no output schema almost every clause about a section earns its place. It is still a single dense run-on block, so section detail is harder to scan than it would be as a short list.

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 carries the full burden of describing return shape, and it does so section by section, including field-level notes (wallet_count, url, event_slug/title/markets_n). An agent knows what comes back and why a section might be empty before it calls.

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 100%, so the schema carries the parameter contract and 3 is the baseline. The description still adds genuine meaning: `q` may be a 0x address inside a pasted URL, an ENS name searched as the address it resolves to, or a polymarket.com link, and `limit` is clarified as per-section row count rather than a global cap.

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 and resource with scope: "Search everything vike knows by name, symbol or address in one call." The anchor to "the same search as the vike.io search box" plus the explicit section enumeration (tokens, hl_markets, wallets, traders, vaults, builders, polymarket, markets, did_you_mean) makes it unmistakably distinct from narrow siblings like token_search or wallet_ens.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger with "Use it to turn a name into an address or id before calling another tool," which is real routing guidance. It never names an alternative or a when-not-to-use case (e.g. token_search for token-only lookups), so it stops short of the explicit alternative-routing that a 5 requires.

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