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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral boundaries beyond them: 'May fetch the published catalog; does not retrieve underlying dataset values or call the suggested sibling tools' plus 'No source collection, score changes, causal joins or trading authority.' It also flags an output distinction ('Source metadata and funding interpretations stay distinct').

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?

Front-loads purpose and alternatives in the first two sentences, and every sentence carries distinct scope information. Dense but not padded; the middle sentence listing funding/institution/liquidity data is the least readable but still informative.

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 read-only discovery tool with a full output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, alternatives, and explicit non-behaviors. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, so nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic mapping the enum alone lacks, tying topics to meaning ('funding context', 'institution filings, exit liquidity and NarcoScope's granular global data') and describing pagination intent via the catalog-by-topic framing.

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 ('Discover which published datasets and sibling-product tools can answer a research question') and names the sibling tools it is distinct from (world_markets_context, market_workbench). An agent can route to or away from it without opening any schema.

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 frames the selection condition: 'Choose this for catalog discovery and handoff links, not for market observations,' then names alternatives for each excluded case. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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