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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: that duplicate symbols exist, that results are ranked candidates, and what fields come back (address, liquidity, Risk Level) — important since there is no output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the disambiguation caveat, then the actionable takeaway ('Always act on the address, not the symbol'). Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields and the ambiguity the tool resolves. It leaves open whether results are paged, ranked, or limited in count, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single param already documents the accepted formats (symbol, name, 0x address). The description restates the same three formats without adding syntax, casing, or partial-match rules, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 (look up) plus resource (token) and scope (by symbol, name or address on Robinhood Chain), which is clearly distinct from siblings like check_token_risk or scan_contract. An agent can tell immediately what this tool returns: disambiguated candidate tokens.

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?

Gives clear contextual guidance — that symbols are ambiguous due to copies and fakes, so this tool should be used to disambiguate before acting, and that the address (not the symbol) is the stable identifier. It does not explicitly name when to route to check_token_risk or scan_contract instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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