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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: the exact scope of geo (historical membership only, not freshness or reviewed definitions) and the need to retain 'version' while paging. It does not state whether this is read-only, how results are ordered, or what the response shape is.

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?

Four short sentences with the scope stated first, then behavioral caveats. Nothing is padded, though 'Preserve kind, exact identity, units and source terms' reads as an instruction of unclear intent and costs a sentence without obvious payoff.

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?

Eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage means the description is the only source of truth. It addresses geo and version but leaves the majority of parameters and the overall result shape unaddressed, which is insufficient for a tool this broad.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains geo's semantics and version retention, and its resource enumeration hints at 'kind', but source, market, query, page, and limit are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb (Search) and enumerates resource categories that map loosely to the 'kind' enum (annual, economic, series, onchain, company), which is genuinely informative. However, phrases like 'qualified economic definitions' and 'other source time series' are jargon-heavy and ambiguous, and no sibling is named or excluded even though search_indicators and list_series overlap heavily.

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 clarifies one conditional semantic ('geo filters historical source membership... does not establish freshness'), but never says when to choose this tool over search_indicators, get_series_data, or list_series. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.

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