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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the result format (titles, summaries, links) and the content boundary (education only, no market data), but says nothing about result limits or how ranking works. With annotations carrying the safety story, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the searchable content scope is front-loaded, the return shape follows, and the exclusion is a compact final clause. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 three-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: which corpora are indexed, the shape of a result, and the bilingual behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or ordering behavior, which are unlikely to block a correct call.

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 100%: lang, limit and query all carry their own descriptions with defaults, ranges and an example. The description only echoes the bilingual capability already stated in the lang param, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (searches) and resource (Clear Tape's free trading education), then enumerates exactly which content is covered: Learn articles, Academy lessons, strategy pages and calculators. It also states output shape (titles, one-line summaries, links) and excludes market data, so an agent can separate it from the calculate_* and lookup_glossary_term siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: keyword lookup over educational content in English or Chinese, with an explicit exclusion ("No market data"). It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and the closest alternative, lookup_glossary_term, so the caller must infer that boundary.

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