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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses actual failure behavior (HTTP 400 for unsupported inputs), confirms it returns per-coin URLs, and clarifies the nature of results ('Commentary on public statements, not advice'). This is meaningful operational detail beyond the structured annotations.

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 key fact that it is free, then immediately states the operation. The main flaw is redundancy: 'FREE' appears twice, and the 'Commentary' disclaimer, while useful, is tangential to invocation. Still, the description is compact and scannable.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the search scope, the output format, and a key error behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the published columns searched and by explicitly warning that unsupported semantic inputs will be rejected. This goes beyond the schema's simple substring example.

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'), a definite resource ('the current board'), the exact columns searched, and the return type (matches with per-coin URL). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like board_snapshot or coin, even without naming them.

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?

Provides clear context on what search operates over and explicitly states what it does not accept (portfolio, position, risk-profile inputs). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say 'use this when...', but the scope is precise enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate.

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