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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: blank/missing queries return empty buckets, and the search scopes mirror web search. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. It does not describe pagination or sorting, but those are likely in the output 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?

The description is two sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose and scope, followed by a concise edge-case behavior. No redundant information or filler; every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers scope, matching criteria, and blank-query behavior. For a bounded search tool, this is largely complete. It might ideally mention result count or pagination, but those are likely in the output schema. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with the 'query' parameter already described as 'Search query (fund names, tickers, insider names).' The description reinforces this by listing matching fields but does not add significant new parameter-level semantics. The blank-query behavior is useful but is more behavioral than parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a cross-domain search covering funds, stocks, and insiders, with specific fields (name, ticker/name, owner). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_fund, get_stock, and get_investor, which target single entities. The phrase 'Bounded cross-domain search' further clarifies its scope.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when searching across domains by name/ticker/owner, rather than retrieving a specific known entity via sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the cross-domain scope and reference to web search scopes provide clear situational context. A minor gap is the absence of explicit exclusionary guidance.

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