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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation and the feed scope is stated, but there is no information about result ordering, pagination, match behavior, or whether the search is free-form or exact-match. This is adequate for a simple search tool but not rich.

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?

A single sentence communicates the resource, content, and input modes without any filler or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description gives enough context for an agent to successfully invoke the tool: what is searchedhic and by what criteria. The main omissions are the meaning of the limit parameter and explicit return behavior, but since no output schema exists, a brief note on results would improve completeness. Still, this is close to sufficient for a simple, optional-parameter search tool.

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 adds meaningful semantics for two of the three parameters: 'free text' maps to query, and 'ticker' maps to ticker, while the 'and/or' clarifies that they can be used individually or together. It does not explain the limit parameter's purpose beyond what the schema's min/max implies.

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'), resource ('Marx feed'), content domain ('market news and agent analysis'), and search criteria ('free text and/or ticker'). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from the sibling get/list tools, which operate on agents and threads rather than the feed.

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 the tool is useful: whenever an agent needs to find feed content by text or ticker. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it give exclusions or context about how it relates to sibling tools like list_open_threads or get_agent.

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