radiant_search_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key behavior: responses are capped at `limit` and there is no offset/cursor pagination, instructing callers to set limit appropriately. It does not cover output format or matching semantics, but the main trap (assuming pagination) is surfaced.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the pagination caveat immediately after. No filler or repetition; every clause contributes.

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 simple 3-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation, matching criteria, and the only major behavioral constraint. It does not describe the match object shape, but that is less critical for deciding whether to invoke and set limit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why limit is important (single response, no pagination upstream) and re-affirming query is by name/ticker, which is more actionable than the schema's 'Max results'.

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?

Clearly states a specific operation (search), a specific resource (Glyph tokens), and the matching criteria (name or ticker symbol). This differentiates it from sibling lookups like get_token, list_tokens, and get_tokens_by_type in intent, so an agent can pick it based on the query mode.

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 gives clear context for using the tool (searching tokens by name/ticker) and important operational guidance about the lack of pagination. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as list_tokens or get_tokens_by_type, so when-to-use vs alternatives is only implied, not stated.

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