Search collections

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns curated registry entries, and unregistered collections are still supported by passing identifiers directly to other tools. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and examples, the second explains what is returnedholistically, and the third covers the open-world fallback. Every sentence earns its place and important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter search tool with read-only and open-world annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, why that matters for downstream tools, and how to handle collections absent from the registry. No critical calling information 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?

The schema already defines the query parameter well ('Free-text name search') with 100% coverage. The description adds helpful examples and clarifies the query expectation, but it does not substantially extend what the schema already communicates about the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find digital-collectible collections by name', reinforced with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from sibling collection tools by stating it returns the identifiers (Magic Eden symbol, Core collection address) that other tools need.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: when searching by name, not by structured identifiers. The fallback guidance for collections not in the registry is a useful alternative path, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or say 'use this instead of X'.

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