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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it returns multiple candidates rather than one, and warns that similar tickers are common so addresses must be compared. It does not mention result limits or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the most important caveat. No waste.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential caveat about ambiguous results. It lacks detail on result count, ordering, or ties to chord_token, which would make it fully complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the accepted query forms (symbol, name, address) but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Find) and resource (token) with explicit scope (on one chain, by symbol/name/address). Distinguishes itself from the sibling chord_token, which presumably resolves a single known token rather than searching.

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?

Implies usage (search when you don't have the exact address) but never names the alternative chord_token or states when this is preferable. The only guidance is the implicit warning about similar tickers.

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