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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (what each result contains, browsing-all mode via omitted query), but says nothing about result volume, rate limits, or pagination semantics beyond the cursor parameter.

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 tight sentences plus a concrete example, with the core capability and return shape front-loaded and no filler.

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 detailed, and the description still sketches the result categories. The remaining gap is minor guidance on how much a single page returns relative to cursor continuation.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the omit-query behavior for listing everything, which clarifies the otherwise optional query parameter beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Search the assets Gale Finance covers") and enumerates the returned artifacts: asset page, pair comparisons, calendar-year pages, long-term scorecards. The "Do you cover Hyperliquid?" example makes the discovery role unmistakable, distinguishing it from siblings like compare_assets or rank_assets_by_metric.

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?

Explicitly states the two usage modes: pass a ticker/name to search, or omit the query to page through all coverage. It does not name sibling alternatives or say when to prefer them, so it stops short of a 5.

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