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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It correctly implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state that no side effects occur. It mentions the output scope (facts, speakers, metrics) but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or empty result handling.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose, query options, and return types are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fills the gap by stating return types. It covers the main use cases for a search tool. Minor omissions like pagination or default behavior when no parameters are provided are acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for the 'topic' parameter and clarifying how ticker and free text can be used. However, it does not explain parameter combinations or syntax beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states that the tool searches earnings call transcripts, specifies multiple query dimensions (topic, ticker, free text), and lists the return type (facts, speakers, metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on company info, filings, or people.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like origin_filings or origin_person. The description implies usage for transcript queries but does not mention exclusions or context for choosing among siblings.

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