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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds two behavioral facts the annotations do not: results are ordered with official addresses first, and the call is free. It says nothing about pagination, result shape, or what happens with zero matches.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the key mapping, so nothing is wasted. However the writing is a sentence fragment with an implied verb, which costs clarity that one more word ('Find...') would have recovered.

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 carries some burden for return values; stating that matches are token addresses ordered official-first covers the essentials. It omits match-count/limit behavior and empty-result handling, leaving modest gaps for a search tool.

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%, with the q character-class and the limit range already documented in the schema. The description adds that q may be a ticker, name, or description, which is genuine extra meaning, but it says nothing about limit or the default of 10.

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 fragment 'Ticker, name or description to matching Keeta token addresses' identifies the resource (tokens) and the input-to-output mapping, and 'Official addresses first' clarifies the ranking. It is not a well-formed verb+resource sentence and never names the nearby get_token sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_token or quote_token_check, both of which sit in the sibling list and could plausibly serve overlapping lookups. 'Free' hints at a cost consideration but is not usage guidance.

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