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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely yes) or any side effects, nor does it describe output format (e.g., JSON structure, error handling for invalid symbols). The description adds basic information but lacks depth expected for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and mentions the return fields efficiently. Every word contributes, no redundancy. It is well structured for quick scanning.

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?

This is a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the input and a summary of the output, but lacks details on response format, potential errors, or rate limits. For its simplicity, it is adequate but could be more complete with a few more behavioral notes.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds practical examples ('Symbol (e.g. CAPY) or mint address') and clarifies that the same field accepts either typeahan, which goes beyond the schema's bare description. This adds value for proper usage.

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: looking up a token by symbol or mint address, and specifies the data returned (price, holders, liquidity, 24h change). This is specific and unambiguous, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'top_tokens' which lists tokens rather than performing a lookup.

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 says 'by symbol or mint address' which implies usage context, but does not provide guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., when to use 'bulk_screener' for multiple tokens or 'candles' for historical data). It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, but the core use case is clear.

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