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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the match is substring, not semantic, COMPOUND:: series are included, and coverage has a known fallback path. Annotations are thin and partly odd (readOnlyHint=false on an obviously read-oriented search), but the description never explicitly claims read-only, so this is a gap rather than a contradiction.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and matching semantics, then query-shaping advice, then the fallback. Every clause earns its place with 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 need no explanation, and the description covers scope, matching mode, and the escape hatch when results are missin. It leaves `limit`/pagination behavior and term-combination semantics unexplained, which is the remaining gap.

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 all four parameters. It explains `terms` well (decomposed, short stems) and implies `schema` ("in one schema") and `include_compound` ("Includes active COMPOUND:: series"), but says nothing about `limit` or how term arrays are combined (AND vs OR). Partial compensation for a 0% coverage schema.

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+resource (find series in one schema by title terms) and immediately pins down the matching mechanism as substring rather than semantic. It also names what the tool does not cover and routes to the run_sql sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from get_series and run_sql without opening a schema.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it (substring title search), how to shape the query (already-decomposed terms, short stems), and where to go when it fails (run_sql over series/dimensions tables). That is when-to-use, how-to-use, and a named alternative in three sentences.

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