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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: it is 'Strict by design' and excludes instruments with merely unverified access, and it explains the distinction between mint and buy gates. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand filtering semantics.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the nuanced reasoning second. No wasted words, front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description explains the core concept and the strict filtering behavior. An output schema exists, so return format is covered. The only gap is explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs its siblings, but given the name and description, an agent can likely infer the use case. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not describe parameters directly, but it does imply the include_unverified behavior via 'Strict by design'. Since the schema covers everything, baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding instruments a self-custody wallet can buy without KYC and hold itself. It distinguishes itself from a token list by explaining the mint vs. buy gate nuance, which is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context about the question it answers (permissionless assets for self-custody) and explains the strict filtering behavior, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings like search_yield_products or find_tokenized_security. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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