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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds the useful behavioral detail of result ordering (newest first) and which fields are matched, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or empty-query handling. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 fits.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping, followed by the follow-up action. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or 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 single-parameter search tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, match fields, ordering, and the next step. No output schema exists, so the brief note that results are articles that feed into get_article is a reasonable substitute, though it could say more about the shape/count of results.

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?

Only one parameter (q), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Words to search for' by specifying that matching applies to title, summary, or text, which tells the agent how the query will be interpreted. No syntax or matching-mode detail (e.g., AND vs OR) is given, so it is not a 5.

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 (search) and resource (published AdvisorIQ research articles), plus the match scope (title, summary, or text) and result ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_ria_firms and from get_article, which is explicitly named for reading.

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?

The second sentence gives a clear workflow: use this to find articles, then call get_article with a slug to read one. That names the alternative for the read step. It stops short of an explicit when-not (e.g., when to prefer search_ria_firms or other search siblings), so it is clear context rather than full exclusion guidance.

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