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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive search. The description adds useful context that it searches the 2027 rankings and returns slugs, but it does not explain result ordering, limits, empty/no-match behavior, or matching semantics beyond name.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the useful downstream routing detail. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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 strong annotations, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly and understand its role. It could be slightly more complete about return shape or no-result behavior, but it is adequate overall.

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?

The schema fully documents the single q parameter, including that it should be part of the name and at least two characters. The description reinforces that matching is by name, but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: find trading schools and prop firms by name within the Tradoshi 2027 rankings. It also clarifies the tool's role relative to get_school and get_prop_firm by explaining that it returns slugs for those detail tools.

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?

It clearly implies the tool should be used to resolve a name into a slug before calling get_school or get_prop_firm. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_rankings, but the intended workflow is clear.

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