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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about result shape (speaker attribution, deep link to the exact moment), but says nothing about result caps, ranking, or coverage limits across companies or time periods.

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, zero filler, with the capability stated before the usage hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and mostly documented parameters, the description only needs to convey purpose and routing, which it does. Minor gaps remain around result volume and whether searching is restricted by ticker or recency, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 67%: 'query' and 'ticker' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' only carries numeric bounds and no explanation. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema - nothing about search syntax, whether ticker is an exact match, or what the limit default is - so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a concrete verb ('Find') with a specific resource ('what was said on earnings calls') and states what comes back (speaker plus a timestamped link). It scopes itself to earnings-call speech, which separates it from a generic 'search', but it never names the closest siblings such as search_earnings or get_transcript.

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 line 'Best for "what did the CEO say about X"' gives a clear, actionable trigger context that an agent can match a query against. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tools to route to instead.

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