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

Annotations only declare read-only/non-destructive/open-world; the description adds the non-obvious hazard that tickers are not unique and that result rows carry safety signals (verifiedByWarden, establishedAsset, warning). With no output schema, this result-semantics disclosure is exactly the value the description should add.

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 purpose in the first clause, followed by safety guidance; no filler sentences. The middle sentence is dense and chains several clauses, which slightly hurts scannability but every element earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the searchable fields, the ambiguity of results, and how to rank or reject rows — enough to call it safely. The only real omission is the optional chain-filtering behavior.

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 parameter meaning: it does explain that `query` matches name, ticker or contract address (and its practical ambiguity). However, `chainId` is never addressed — whether omitting it searches all chains or narrows to one is left to inference.

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 ('Find tokens') plus the three search axes (name, ticker, contract address) and the scope (across supported chains). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like trending_tokens or list_chains.

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 routes the agent: prefer verifiedByWarden or establishedAsset rows, never treat a warned row as the real asset, and use `cash`/`native` from list_chains for dollars and gas. That is a named alternative tool plus a when-not condition.

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