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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses cost ('FREE'), result ranking, and returned fields, but does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only, whether limits/pagination apply, or anything about caching or rate limits. Search implies non-mutating, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences. 'FREE' leads, followed by what it searches, what it returns, and the ordering directive. No sentence is wasted.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape (id, summary, categories) and ordering guidance. Minor gaps remain around limit semantics and explicit read-only status, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents query and category well. The description adds meaningful illustrative examples for query ('BTC spot price', 'AAPL income statement', 'US CPI') that help the agent formulate effective searches. The limit parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description, preventing a 5.

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 and resource ('Search the finance tool catalog') and clearly describes the input (task description) and output (ranked tools with id, summary, categories). The examples and 'Call this first' make it easy to distinguish from the downstream finance_inspect and finance_run siblings.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('Call this first') and gives concrete query examples, which establishes it as the entry point before inspect/run. It does not explicitly name the alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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