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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the description needn't restate safety. It does add a genuinely non-obvious behavior: `limit` caps token hits only, not trader or market hits. The disambiguation advice about name collisions (many TRUMPs) is also real operational context that no structured field carries.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is searchable and followed by the resolver role, the parameter caveat, and the disambiguation tip. No filler and no redundancy; each sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully signals the shape of results (chain+address, coin, condition_id) so the agent knows what it will get back and how to feed it into other tools. The one gap is that it never says whether results are mixed across kinds in a single list or how many traders/markets come back, which matters given `limit` only bounds tokens.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the 1-50 range and default of 12. The description's note that `limit` applies only to token hits adds a scoping nuance beyond the schema, but the restates-the-schema quality of `q`'s accepted inputs adds nothing new. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) plus the full set of resources covered — tokens, perps, prediction markets, traders — and the matching keys (ticker, name, address, handle). The clause about turning a name into chain+address, coin, or condition_id clearly separates it from point-lookup siblings like get_token, get_trader, and list_traders.

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?

"Start here" gives explicit entry-point guidance and makes the tool the resolver that feeds the other tools, which is strong when-to-use direction. It also advises picking among ambiguous names by kind and liquidity. It never states a when-not-to-use condition or names a sibling alternative directly, so it stops short of 5.

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