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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and no output schema dependency, so the description only needs to add color. It contributes that results include verifiable internal source links, but says nothing about result ordering, freshness, coverage of markets, or rate limits. Note that readOnlyHint=false is slightly surprising for a search verb, and the description neither explains nor contradicts this.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted framing; the bilingual restatement is a deliberate accessibility choice rather than padding. The one thing missing is structure — the scope, return-content, and market details are packed into a single sentence rather than separated.

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?

Given six fully documented parameters and an output schema, the definition covers what the tool searches and what it returns, which is most of what an agent needs. Remaining gaps — result ordering and whether limits truncate silently — are modest for a read-style search tool.

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% and all six parameters carry their own descriptions, including the market enum and ISO date formats. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: searching US SEC filings and China listed-company announcements, plus a notion of what comes back (internal source links). The resource noun alone separates it from siblings like search_meetings, search_research, and search_visuals, though no sibling is ever named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource: an agent can infer 'use this when you need SEC filings or China announcements.' There is no statement of when to prefer get_evidence or search_research instead, and no prerequisites (query length, market defaults) are discussed.

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