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 behavioral context—BM25 ranking and the multi-topic corpus scope—but says nothing about result pagination, output format, or what 'resolves company names' entails operationally. This is adequate additional context, not rich disclosure.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler, and the core search capability is front-loaded. The second sentence about ticker lookup is somewhat tacked on but still brief. It could be marginally tightened, but it is appropriately sized.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the core operation adequately. However, it omits any routing guidance against the numerous specialized search siblings and leaves the dual 'resolves company names' capability unexplained, which an agent might need in order to choose this tool correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (q, limit, topic) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all parsed SEC/FDA/register/weather section bodies (BM25 ranking).' It distinguishes itself from vertical-specific siblings by covering all parsed section bodies. The secondary sentence about resolving company names adds a bit of scope blur, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to choose this generic search over the many specialized search tools (e.g., adviser_search, ag_census_county_search). It implies usage through the corpus description but provides no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The 'also resolves company names' clause is a capability hint, not a usage rule.

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