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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description goes beyond that with rich behavioral detail: per-group limits, best-match-first ordering, exact/prefix matching rules, minimum name length, Chinese-name support for superinvestors, and the meaning of the detail field. This gives an agent a strong model of how the tool behaves.

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 dense but not wasteful; each sentence adds a distinct fact about scope, result shape, identifiers, matching behavior, or output fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 multi-entity search tool, the description covers the full contract: searchable entity types, supported input forms, matching rules, output limits, field semantics, and the identifiers required by sibling tools. With a read-only annotation and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema already documents query and limit, but the description adds substantial meaning: matching by ticker prefix, exact CIK/CUSIP matching, needing at least 2 characters for names, examples like 'Buffett' and 'Pershing', and what limit means per group. This is far beyond the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 what the tool does: it finds US stocks, 13F institutions, and corporate insiders by ticker or name. It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by emphasizing that it returns the identifiers those tools consume, so an agent can tell search from get_stock, get_institution, and get_insider_trades.

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 makes the tool's role as a lookup/search entry point clear: it returns ticker and CIK identifiers expected by the sibling tools. It also explains behavior such as matching superinvestors by fund or manager name and matching CIKs/CUSIPs exactly. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like list_superinvestors, which prevents a 5.

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