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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool refuses rather than returning a near match, and that it produces a ticker for downstream use. But it does not explain result shape, pagination, error modes, or side effects beyond refusal.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core capability, the handoff to etf_profile, and the strict matching behavior are all front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and two undocumented optional parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what desk controls, how limit affects results, or whether the response is a single ETF or a list. The refusal note and handoff help, but substantive operational gaps remain.

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% for three parameters. The description gives meaning only to query as a ticker, fund name, or name word. desk and limit remain entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the specific verb and resource: find US listed ETFs by ticker, fund name, or name word. It also positions itself against the sibling etf_profile, making it clear this is the first lookup step rather than a profile/ranking/holdings tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use this FIRST when the user names a fund loosely and then pass the returned ticker to etf_profile. It provides a clear context trigger and an alternative, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it (e.g., exact ticker lookups).

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