search_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality and return data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Search for tokens on Omni.fun by name or symbol') and includes the return value. There is zero waste, and every part of the sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with one parameter), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'Search query (token name or symbol)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as query syntax, case sensitivity, or partial matching rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Search for tokens') and resources ('tokens on Omni.fun'), and mentions what information is returned ('current price and market cap'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token' or 'get_trending_tokens', which likely retrieve tokens by different criteria.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_token' (likely for specific token lookup) or 'get_trending_tokens' (likely for popular tokens), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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