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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: results are factual-only, contain ids for fetch, and exclude recommendations, price targets, and grey-market premiums. This enriches the agent's expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource and verb first, then the id-to-fetch workflow, then the factual-data boundary. Every sentence serves a purpose, and no fluff or redundancy is present.

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 simple single-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, return-value linkage to fetch, and content boundaries. It doesn't describe the exact response shape or define behavior relative to search_filings, but neither is essential for invoking this tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, query, and the schema already describes it as 'What to search for' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or query-construction guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: search MarketPing's Indian stock market data, and enumerates the content types covered (companies, announcements, IPOs, annual reports, transcripts, presentations). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_filings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly communicates the intended workflow: search to get result ids, then pass those ids to fetch. It gives useful context about what to search but doesn't state when to prefer this over search_filings or other alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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