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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: the external Bloomberg source, that no API key is required, and that an optional key raises rate limits. It does not contradict 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise usage bullets, an alternative for disambiguation, and a brief note on authentication. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and rate-limit behavior. It is only slightly incomplete in not explaining the optional filter parameters, which are partly covered in the nested schema.

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?

The description only mentions searching by name or keyword, which maps to the query parameter. It does not explain the other available filters such as exchange_code, security_type, limit, or the caching/source_resource_id parameter. With schema description coverage reported at 0% for the top-level parameter, the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search Bloomberg OpenFIGI for financial instruments by name or keyword. It also names the returned fields and distinguishes the tool from MapInstrumentIds, so an agent can identify its role without inspecting the 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?

It provides explicit 'use this tool when' bullets and names the alternative MapInstrumentIds with the condition that selects it. This gives clear routing guidance between siblings.

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