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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool returns titles, descriptions, and URLs, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as result ranking, pagination, or whether the search is exact/fuzzy. It avoids contradicting any annotation (none exist) and provides basic behavioral expectations, but not a complete picture.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope, followed by the return type. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the resource scope, language coverage, and return format. It lacks details on result ordering or filtering, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'query' with a minimal description, and the tool description adds the context of search scope and return fields. However, it does not elaborate on query syntax, language handling, or expected search semantics beyond a general 'search query.' With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional value is provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource scope: every page and tool on agiscorecard.com and its invest/compass sub-sites in English and Chinese. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all specific data retrieval tools for particular records.

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 description implies usage for broad site-wide queries but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling getter tools, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer it is the general search option, but there is no explicit alternative guidance.

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