search_o1_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the read-only verb "search". It does not say how many results come back, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, how an empty result is handled, or whether only o1-launched tokens on Base are searched.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter search tool, though the terseness leaves no room for the routing or result-shape hints an agent would benefit from.

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?

The tool is simple (one string param, no annotations, no output schema), so the bar is low, but the description still omits what a search returns and how it relates to get_o1_token_details. It is adequate to call the tool, not enough to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required "query" parameter is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description is the only source of meaning. "By name, symbol, or address" tells the agent exactly what values the query accepts, which is a meaningful addition — though match semantics and address format remain unstated.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search o1 Base tokens") plus the scope of the search (name, symbol, or address), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_o1_token_details, leaving the agent to infer search-vs-lookup from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing name/symbol/address as accepted inputs suggests this is the discovery path when the agent does not already have a token ID, in contrast to get_o1_token_details. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative.

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