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

Adds genuine signal beyond the annotations: results are ids and links only, not full text, and full content requires fetch. Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the remaining gap is ranking, result caps, and pagination, none of which are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the covered content types and closed with the id-to-fetch handoff. No filler; nothing material is buried or padded.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the definition covers what is searchable and what comes back (ids/links). Pagination or result-limit behavior is the notable omission, but the output schema carries the return-shape burden.

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% and the single query parameter is already documented as "Words to search for, or a question." The description restates the same framing without adding syntax, matching behavior, or example queries.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Search") and enumerates concrete resources: companies, earnings results, outlook, management quotes, call transcripts. It reads as the broad discovery tool among the siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_earnings or search_transcripts.

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 a clear follow-on workflow ("pass an id to fetch for the full text"), which tells the agent this is a two-step retrieve pattern. It stops short of saying when to prefer it over the narrower siblings such as search_earnings, search_transcripts, or get_company.

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