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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results come from a curated tool directory and that filters are optional, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or pagination.

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 tight sentences: the core action first, then the optional filters. No filler, no redundancy, nothing to trim.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description omits what a result actually contains (tool names, slugs, links, matched fields) and how results are bounded or ranked. Annotations cover safety, but return-shape expectations are left unspecified.

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 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description merely restates the filter set ('category slug, can_trade_live, has_paper') without adding format, matching, or combination semantics.

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+resource ('Search the TradingAgentStack directory of AI trading tools') plus the dimensions searched (name, market, feature). It is naturally distinguishable from get_tool and list_category, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those 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?

The description surfaces the optional filters, implying this is the keyword-driven discovery path, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. compare_tools/get_tool/list_category and no when-not guidance. Usage is left to inference.

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