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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait, that the result set excludes prices/candles, but nothing about matching semantics, ranking, or empty-result handling.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no padding. The Premiss reference consumes space without adding usable information, but the result is still tight.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, three undocumented parameters and zero guidance on when to prefer this over describe_market leave real gaps for a search entry-point tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters, including the meaning of an empty 'query' default or how asset_class interacts with a text query. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 resource (crypto/stock/ETF market directory), so the agent knows it looks up instruments rather than data. The reference to 'the same directory as Premiss' is opaque and does not help differentiate it from siblings like describe_market.

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?

The line 'Does not return prices or candles' implicitly scopes it away from data-retrieval tools, but no sibling is named and no condition for choosing this over describe_market or get_capabilities is given. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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