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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cross-category search scope and a behavioral nuance (person hits carry matched_person), giving useful insight into return behavior. It could be more explicit about read-only nature, but that is implied for a search tool.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a concrete use case and a behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the search scope and the matched_person field, which partially covers return behavior. It could detail result structure more, but for its intended role as an identifier lookup entry point, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds examples that illustrate search behavior (e.g., 'Seth Klarman' -> Baupost) but does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 it searches across institutions, stocks, and insider traders in the ko.io SEC database, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling getter tools by positioning it as the first step to obtain CIK numbers, tickers, or slugs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first when you have a name but need identifiers like CIK, ticker, or slug for other tools. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates it from the specific lookup tools in the sibling list.

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