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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and external-source profile is covered. The description adds that results come from a public web-search endpoint and are normalized into 'discovery sections,' which is useful context. It does not explain rate limits, freshness, or whether results are cached, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and the resource. It is not bloated, but the endpoint path is less useful to an agent than a plain statement of purpose would have been, so a perfect score is not earned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a search tool in a crowded CoinGecko family with no usage guidance and an ambiguous phrase ('discovery sections'), an agent lacks the context to decide when this is the right tool versus coingecko_coin, coingecko_markets, or coingecko_categories.

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%; both q and limit are documented with types, default, and max. The description only embeds the query in the URL template and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No credit is warranted for restating schema-documented fields.

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 identifies the underlying endpoint (/en/search_v2?query={q}) and says it returns 'normalized discovery sections.' However, it never explicitly says this is a search tool for CoinGecko assets, nor does it explain what a 'discovery section' contains or how results differ from siblings like coingecko_coin or coingecko_markets. The purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With many CoinGecko siblings (coingecko_search is not the only entry point), the definition gives no hint about which tool to pick: broad query discovery versus direct coin, exchange, or category lookups. The agent must guess.

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