EIP / ERC / BIP lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile and external-fetch nature are covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it says nothing about ambiguous or multi-match queries, result formatting, or whether lookups are cached or rate-limited.

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 the action first and the accepted input formats in a compact parenthetical. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 lookup this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say what comes back (full text, metadata, URL) and it omits any explanation of the 'kind' filter. Those are real gaps for an agent deciding how to call and consume the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the 'query' parameter well ('by number or title words' plus accepted formats like 'ERC-4337' and 'BIP-341'), but the 'kind' enum (eips/ercs/bips) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource class (Ethereum EIP/ERC and Bitcoin BIP documents), then anchors it with three concrete examples ('ERC-4337', '1559', 'BIP-341'). No sibling tool (search_whitepapers, get_chain, etc.) overlaps this function, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 phrase 'by number ... or title words' implies the two ways to query, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_whitepapers for broader document search. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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