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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, which already establish the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return shape (listing all fields and tickers array), and notes the relationship to get_coingecko_coins_id without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, clarifies the parameter requirement, details the return value, gives a use case, and ends with a comparison to a lighter alternative. Every sentence carries information without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema is present, the tool's return values are already documented, and the description adds necessary context about the lookup method, alternate tools, and use case. For a 2-parameter tool with high schema coverage and rich annotations, this is complete and sufficient.

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% and describes each parameter adequately (id as asset platform, contract address as token address). The description reinforces that both are required and no others, but adds little beyond the schema's clear definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool looks up a coin profile by contract address instead of CoinGecko id, distinguishing it from get_coingecko_coins_id. It lists the specific fields returned and the use case of identifying an unknown token, making its purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states both parameters are required and no others, and gives a strong routing hint: for current price only, use the far lighter get_coingecko_simple_token_price_id. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and implicitly contrasts with get_coingecko_coins_id for id-based lookups.

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