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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: result ordering is biased toward dividend payers and larger companies, which affects how an agent should interpret/rank hits. It doesn't mention result count limits or empty-result behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it searches, then ordering behavior, then the concrete use case with examples. No filler, and the examples make the expected query style concrete.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently implies the return value (a ticker lookup) plus ordering semantics. The only real gap is the unexplained 'limit' parameter and the maximum result cardinality, which an agent would need to know to size a search.

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 50% – 'query' is documented in the schema and the description largely restates it with examples, while 'limit' (default 10, max 25) is never mentioned in either. The description adds example query forms but does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 and resource ('Search U.S.-listed stocks, ETFs and funds') and bounds the searchable surface (company/fund name or ticker). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all dividend/income oriented, and an agent can tell the difference without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit downstream use case ('turn a name ... into a ticker for get_dividend_profile'), naming the sibling it feeds. It stops short of saying when *not* to use it, but the intended entry-point role is unambiguous.

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