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

The description adds behavioral context by specifying the search scope: instrument_name, developer, and constructs_covered. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Missing details like matching semantics, case sensitivity, or default limits keep this from being a higher score.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The key term 'Keyword search' is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate for a basic invocation. However, it lacks routing guidance relative to sibling tools and provides no detail on result ordering, limit defaults, or search matching behavior.

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?

The description defines the meaning of q as a keyword applied to instrument_name, developer, and constructs_covered, which is useful since schema description coverage is 0%. The limit parameter is not explained, though its schema does provide type and range constraints. Overall, the description partially compensates for the schema's missing descriptions but not fully.

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 states a specific verb and resource: keyword search over instruments. It also names the three fields searched, which gives concrete meaning beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling instruments.list or instruments.lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Keyword search' implies the tool should be used when a keyword-based query over specific fields is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over instruments.list or instruments.lookup, and no alternatives are named.

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