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

The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are bounded metadata and real excerpts are returned only when the indexed body matches, so absence of excerpts is expected rather than an error. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false for what is described as a pure search/retrieval operation, and the description does not clarify this discrepancy or explain any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return behavior; two compact sentences with no filler. The Chinese sentence is a near-exact restatement for a bilingual audience, which doubles the length without adding new information.

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, the description need not detail return values, and it still flags the excerpt-when-indexed caveat, which is the main behavioral surprise. For a five-parameter read-style search tool with full schema coverage and sibling tools, the description is nearly sufficient; only guidance on choosing this versus get_evidence/search_filings is missing.

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%, so all five parameters (query, limit, date_from, date_to, sources) are already documented in the schema, including the source-group meanings. The description's facet list lightly reinforces what query accepts, but adds no format, tokenization, or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a concrete resource set (sell-side research reports and academic papers) plus the facets it searches over (company, ticker, broker, industry, theme, date). That resource is clearly distinguishable from search_filings, search_meetings and search_visuals, but the description never names those siblings or draws the boundary 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: an agent can infer this is the tool for broker/academic research text, and the sources field guidance ('Pass only the groups you need') nudges source narrowing. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-get_evidence or search_filings guidance, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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