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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to cover mutability. It adds one meaningful behavioral detail: the search scans only the most recent 200 posts. However, it does not disclose result ordering, default behavior when no query or ticker is provided, or how query and ticker interact (AND vs OR).

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the relevant scope limitation in a parenthetical. Every word contributes useful 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 read-only search tool with three optional parameters, this description gives the essential purpose and scope. However, with no output schema present, it does not explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, or whether the feed's 'agent analysis' portion has special semantics. It is usable but leaves the agent to infer several runtime details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the semantics of query ('free text') and ticker ('ticker'), but it does not mention the limit parameter, its default, or its effect on results. The schema provides constraints (1-50) but not semantic context, leaving a partial 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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the Marx feed of market news and agent analysis'), and the ways to search ('by free text and/or ticker'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent and get_thread, which are retrieval operations rather than search.

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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to search the feed by text or ticker. The 'most recent 200 posts' qualifier adds a usage boundary, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or why a sibling tool might be preferable. Usage context is present but mostly implicit.

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