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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining what each query type returns (token with check and holders, wallet with history, transaction with what it did) and warns that symbols can be copied, so the address in the answer should be trusted over the symbol. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 a single long sentence that packs a lot of information: accepted input types, per-type behavior, and a caution about symbol ambiguity. It is efficient and front-loads the input types, though the density makes it slightly harder to parse. No wasted words, but it could benefit from breaking into clearer sentences.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns for each input type, including a specific warning about symbols. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% because the single parameter 'query' has a description listing the possible inputs. The description adds meaning by elaborating on how each type is resolved and what the response contains. This goes beyond the schema's bare enumeration, so the description adds value without redundancy.

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 states a specific verb ('takes... and works out which it is') and a resource (token symbol, wallet name, address, or transaction hash), making it clear this is a general-purpose lookup tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_token, wallet_history, and explain_transaction by handling multiple identifier types, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly say when to use it versus specific sibling tools like check_token or wallet_history. It implies that this is for ambiguous queries, but it never names alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over them. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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