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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description fully aligns with them (no contradiction). The description goes well beyond those by disclosing the 6-match cap, SEC-filing source, as-of dates, error caveat, the mandate to always show the source link, and the no-investment-advice disclaimer — genuinely useful behavioral context an agent needs.

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 with zero waste. The first front-loads purpose and result shape; the second adds caveats and usage obligations. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return values — up to 6 matches, links to fund pages, as-of dates, and source-document links. For a single-parameter search tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'query' with the example 'JOF or japan smaller'. The description reinforces the accepted query types (ticker, name, firm) consistently with that example but doesn't add syntax, formatting, or matching rules beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Finds'), a precise resource ('U.S. closed-end fund'), and the three search dimensions (ticker, name, firm). This cleanly separates it from sibling retrieval tools like get_fund and list_activists — it's a search-by-partial-identifier tool, not a point lookup or a list.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you have a ticker, fund name, or firm name to search on. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use get_fund when you already have a fund ID'), so it stops short of the strongest routing guidance.

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