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

The description presents a plain search operation, which is inherently read-only, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. This is an outright inconsistency between the stated behavior and the structured metadata, and the description adds no compensating behavioral context such as provenance format or filtering behavior.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the trailing 'with report/page provenance' phrase is somewhat compressed and could be clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one-sentence purpose is adequate for identification. However, for a five-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves the filter and date-range behavior under-specified.

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 only 20% – just the query parameter is documented. The description does not explain visual_type, date_from/date_to, or limit, so it fails to compensate for the four undocumented parameters, leaving the agent to guess at filter semantics.

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 (charts, tables, industry diagrams, images), so the agent knows what is being retrieved. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_research, and the phrase 'research-relevant images' slightly blurs that boundary.

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 description says what is searched but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_research, search_filings, or search_meetings, and names no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the resource nouns alone.

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