search_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (policyId, asset name, decimals, price, verification status), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or that this is a non-mutating read. For a simple lookup tool this is adequate but shallow.

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, front-loaded with purpose followed by return values, with no filler. Every clause earns its place, particularly the field list given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, which is the key missing context an agent would need. It remains incomplete only in that it gives no usage guidance relative to sibling discovery tools, but for a one-parameter search it is largely sufficient.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the query fully (including examples and the empty-string default). The description restates the search-by-ticker-or-name intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Cardano native tokens') plus the search criteria (ticker symbol or name). It also lists the returned fields. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_trending_tokens or get_token_pools, so an agent still has to infer which search variant applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only hint about listing all tokens ('Leave empty to list all tokens') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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