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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the returned shape (ranked chunks with per-document attribution and license terms), the `quality_caveat` triggered in cross_company mode, and the cost implications of unscoped searches.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the what-then-how-then-prerequisite ordering. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence packs scope default, quality_caveat, and ticker-coverage behavior together tightly.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with a nested issuer object and an output schema, the description covers the decision-critical pieces: issuer vs cross_company, quality_caveat, partners scoping, and the list_partners prerequisite. The legacy ticker_filter and profile/limit tuning are left to the schema, which is reasonable but leaves a small gap for the deprecation-adjacent flag.

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 75% and the description still adds real meaning: it explains the issuer-vs-scope interaction (partner coverage is declared by ticker, so a named issuer narrows results rather than relying on query-text detection), and frames `partners` as a cost-scoping lever. It does not touch limit, profile, doc_types, or ticker_filter, which the schema covers.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (marketplace partner documents published by registered sellers), with concrete examples of doc types. The seller-published scope is distinct from siblings like financial_search and regulation_search, and it explicitly names list_partners as a related-but-different tool.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: pass `issuer` when the question concerns one company, otherwise the call defaults to scope=cross_company and the response sets `quality_caveat`. It also routes the agent to list_partners for discovering sellers before scoping via the `partners` arg.

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