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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the return-value behavior (ids for other tools), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not describe match semantics, ambiguity handling, or result limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the return-value note second. Nothing to trim.

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 one-param, annotation-covered lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input form and output shape (ids). Adequate for correct invocation; only deeper match-behavior detail is absent, which is minor here.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does add the key semantic that the single 'query' param accepts a name OR a ticker, which the schema does not state. Still missing format/validation detail (e.g. partial matches, case sensitivity) for a param capped at 100 chars.

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 and resource: 'Find tracked influencers and stocks by name or ticker.' Clear what it does, though it does not differentiate from the sibling search_transcripts, which also performs a search-like lookup.

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?

'Returns ids to use with the other tools' implies this is the entry-point lookup that feeds downstream calls, so usage context is implied. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of search_transcripts or suggest_influencer as alternatives.

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