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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only, no key' and clarifying that results are IDs to be passed to fetch, which explains what the caller receives beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The high-value information is front-loaded: what is searched, what the result is, and the read-only/no-key property. The parenthetical about ChatGPT connectors is useful context without bloating the definition.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers scope, result format, and usage pattern with fetch. There is no output schema, but 'Returns ids to pass to fetch' adequately describes the return contract, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters (query, limit) are already documented with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource: EventTrader's public knowledge, including composed answers, live funds, and a 1,400-concept ontology encyclopedia. It distinguishes itself from specialized siblings like search_markets and search_ontology by stating its broad scope and its role as the entry point to the fetch companion.

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?

It clearly explains when to use this tool: for searching EventTrader's public knowledge, then passing the returned IDs to fetch. It does not explicitly name alternative search tools or state when not to use it, but the 'search/fetch pair' instruction gives practical routing guidance.

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