search_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context beyond that: per-page pricing, the fact that it searches an analysed catalogue, and that it is an alias of `search`. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.

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 carry the core purpose, filters, sibling distinction, and alias note with zero filler. The pricing informaton is front-loaded and the most decision-relevant facts appear first.

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 read-only search tool with 100% parameter documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers cost, search scope, filtering, sibling distinction, and alias behavior—nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 beyond the schema by clarifying `q` semantics as symbol, name fragment, or exact mint, and by mapping 'platform, size and age filters' to platform, min_mcap, and days. This helps the agent map natural language to the right parameters.

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 and resource: 'Find a token in the analysed catalogue', with concrete search modes (symbol, name fragment, exact mint) and filters. It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_tokens and acknowledges the search alias, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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?

Provides an explicit usage rule: 'find_tokens lists what just migrated; this finds the one you mean.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over a close sibling. It also names the `search` alias as the ChatGPT-shaped variant, covering an alternative invocation path.

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