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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating what the tool searches over and that it returns ids for use with fetch. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination, but with annotations covering safety this is a solid addition.

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 sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The return behavior is stated immediately after the scope, which is an efficient structure.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description provides what an agent needs: scope, entity types, and return usage. No output schema exists, so stating that ids are returned is sufficient for callers.

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 the single query parameter is already documented with acceptable input types. The description reinforces the entity types but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already explains the 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?

The description names a clear verb and resource: search supercyclehq.com for specific entity types. It also states the intended downstream use by returning ids to pass to fetch. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_stocks tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'Returns ids to pass to fetch' implies a search-then-fetch workflow, which is useful context. However, the description does not say when to use this tool instead of siblings like search_stocks, list_agents, or get_ticker. Usage is therefore only implied, not explicitly guided.

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