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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: substring (not semantic) matching, the need for pre-decomposed stems, and inclusion of COMPOUND:: series. It leaves the idempotentHint=false oddity for a read tool unexplained.

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?

Front-loads the core verb+scope, then the term-matching advice, then the fallback path. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the match behavior and fallback are well covered. The gaps are the undocumented `schema` and `limit` params, which matter given 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains `terms` well (decomposed, substring, short stems) and hints at include_compound via COMPOUND:: series, but says nothing about `schema` or `limit`, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Find') and resource ('series') scoped to one schema, and clarifies the matching mode as substring, not semantic. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_series, so sibling differentiation is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: supply already-decomposed terms with short stems, and fall back to run_sql on the series/dimensions tables when this misses. It does not say when to prefer this over get_series, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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