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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that a ranked list is returned, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ranking logic, pagination behavior, or any limitations beyond what the schema already specifies. The read-only hint lowers the bar, but the description adds only minimal context.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, criteria, and return type. It is concise with no filler or redundant information.

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 search tool with 6 optional parameters and a well-documented schema, the description covers the core purpose and return type ('ranked list'). However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify how ranking works or whether results are limited by default, making it slightly less complete than ideal but still usable.

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 all parameters are already documented with types, enums, ranges, and defaults. The description repeats some criteria (Martingale, Startingale, exchange) but does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search and filter') and identifies the resource ('instruments') along with key criteria (Martingale score, Startingale, exchange). It also states the output ('ranked list'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_instrument (single lookup) or list_top_crypto (predefined lists).

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 implies usage as a filtering/search tool but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_instrument or list_top_*. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use language or named alternatives, so guidance is only contextual.

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