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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: impostor-token risk, safety_tier semantics (green/grey/red), and that red tiers block agent buys. It also disambiguates public market data from user-wallet data. Minor gap: no explicit note on result count/pagination, but strong overall.

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-loads the primary action and directive ('Use this FIRST'), then layers tier semantics. Dense but every sentence is informative; slightly long, but no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described; annotations cover safety. The description fills the important gaps—tier meanings, asset_class, and public-vs-wallet scope—making it complete for an agent to call 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies what 'query' accepts (name, symbol, or contract address), which is the key semantic. The 'network' param (const solana) is not addressed, but its const/default makes it largely self-evident.

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+resource: find tokens by name, symbol, or contract address. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many get_token_* siblings by positioning search as the address-resolution step those tools depend on.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use this FIRST whenever the user names a token in words'), names the alternative class ('every other token tool needs a contract address'), and gives disambiguation procedure ('if several results look plausible, show them and ask'). Also warns against the failure mode of guessing addresses.

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