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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/search operation but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset), whether results are ordered, what a result contains, or how an empty query behaves — all relevant to a search tool with paging parameters.

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, zero filler, and the asset scope is front-loaded ahead of the rule constraint. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the domain and a key constraint but omits return shape, pagination behavior, and the semantics of calling it with no filters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents query, tickers, limit, and offset; the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., query vs. exact-ticker lookup distinction, paging semantics) beyond what the schema provides.

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) and resource (assets a Brighter strategy can hold), then enumerates the asset universe (tokenized US stocks, ETFs, T-bills). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling strategy/documentation tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate itself.

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?

"A rule may only name a ticker that appears here" gives a concrete condition for using this tool: validating tickers before authoring a rule. This is clear usage context, but it does not spell out when-not-to-use or name alternatives for looking up assets.

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