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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the fact that results come from the TAAFT catalog (consistent with the closed-world hint); it says nothing about result count behavior, pagination, or how the limit interacts with the search, so with annotations carrying the load a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence with the resource and catalog front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why so much guidance is missing.

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 explained, and the tool is a simple two-parameter search. Still, with one parameter undocumented and no usage routing against the many sibling tools, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 only 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema but 'limit' (default 20, max 50, min 1) has no description anywhere. The description paraphrases the query concept but never mentions the limit parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Search ... for investors') and names the catalog (TAAFT), so an agent knows exactly what is being searched. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_investor or search_companies, leaving the search-vs-get choice ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative 'get_investor' sibling sitting right next to it. The agent must infer that this is the discovery path and get_investor is the lookup path entirely on its own.

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