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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. The description adds value by explaining the opaque ID format (8 hex chars, not RFC UUIDs), entity type tags, and the relationship between companies and issuers, which are beyond 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 concise, consisting of two information-dense sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first covers purpose and entity types, the second covers ID format and entity relationships. No wasted text.

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 the tool's complexity (searching two entity types, mapping to different subsequent tools), the description covers all necessary context: how to interpret results, ID format, relationships, and linked_company_uuid. With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: query can be a name or UNP, case-insensitive, with an example. It reinforces the schema but doesn't add new parameter details beyond that.

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 specifies the verb 'search' and the resources 'companies AND securities issuers', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_by_ticker. It also explains the output tags and entity type differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to use results: for 'company' results use company_get_by_uuid, for 'issuer' results use uuid as issuer_uuid in share_list/bond_list. It also notes the difference between companies and issuers and the linked_company_uuid. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to siblings, but still strong.

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