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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape — "titles, summaries and links" — which is meaningful since no output schema exists. It does not mention result ordering or relevance behavior.

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 the core action and only a modestly long topic enumeration that earns its place by helping match user phrasing. The return-format sentence is short and useful; nothing is padded.

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 compensates by stating what is returned (titles, summaries, links), and it defines the content scope well. The main gap is the absence of any pointer to learn_read for following up on a result, which an agent would need to complete the search-then-read flow.

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%: the query ("plain words") and limit (1-20, default 5) parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about query syntax, keyword behavior, or how limit interacts with relevance, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (Learn articles, glossary terms, calculators, research pages) and enumerates the topical domain it covers (greeks, IV rank, the wheel, etc.). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling learn_read, so an agent must infer the search-vs-fetch split from the names alone.

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?

"answers an options question" implies the usage context, which is enough to know this is the entry point for topic lookup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, and the obvious alternative (learn_read) is never named, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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