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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost/quota profile ('Free, at most 60 calls an hour per client') and that results include risk and score fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond 'limit', or result completeness/caching.

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?

The lead sentence is well front-loaded and the tool-chain hint is valuable, but the rate-limit sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Free, at most 60 calls an hour per client.' appears twice), which is pure waste in a four-sentence description.

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 no-required-parameter search tool with 11 filters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource scope, the result payload hint (risk and scores), and the quota. It is nearly complete; only default ordering and how the 20-result default interacts with pagination are unstated.

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%, so every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no filter semantics beyond mentioning that scores and expected-return figures exist; it does not explain how capital/duration interact with the returned figures.

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 and resource ('Search and filter every tracked Base yield opportunity') plus what the results carry ('total risk and opportunity scores'). The follow-on sentence indirectly names the sibling tools (card, score, history, dependency graph), so an agent can tell this is the entry-point discovery tool rather than a detail-fetch 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?

'Useful for finding candidates and their ids before buying a card, score, history or dependency graph' gives a clear trigger: use this first to resolve opportunities into ids for the get_* siblings. It does not state any when-not condition or fallback, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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