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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that results may include unknown or merged states and that identity should not be inferred from a symbol alone—something not present in the schema or annotations. This goes beyond the basic read-only profile.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The core function is front-loaded, and the caveat about symbol inference is placed second, giving it appropriate emphasis without bloating the description.

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 purpose and the key caveat are clear, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain pagination behavior or what fields a candidate object contains. For a resolution tool that returns ambiguous/merged states, more detail about the result shape would make it more complete.

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 the semantic load. It does clarify what query accepts (name, symbol, canonical key, contract key), which is valuable. However, it provides no explanation for the limit and cursor parameters, which are left to inference from their names.

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 ('Find') with a clear resource ('asset candidates') and enumerates the matching criteria (name, symbol, canonical key, exact stored namespaced contract key). It differentiates this from get_asset by emphasizing candidates rather than a single asset, so an agent can tell this is a resolution/search tool.

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 gives an implicit sense of when to use the tool—when you need to resolve asset candidates by the listed keys. The explicit caution 'Never infer identity from a symbol alone; unknown/merged states remain explicit' is a useful usage directive, but it does not compare against sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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