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

Annotations are none, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the FREE cost signal and the return shape (endpoints with price and parameters), but does not mention failure modes, what happens with no matches, or pagination behavior. For a simple search tool the core behavior is disclosed, though edge behavior is left open.

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 front-loads 'FREE. FIRST STEP' then states purpose, scope, and examples in a logical order. The example list is somewhat long but each example demonstrates legitimate query patterns and earns its place. No redundant sentences.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects, no annotations), the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, its coverage scope, and input examples. The only gaps are failure behavior and result limits, which are minor for a discovery 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds real value for 'query' by explaining it should be in plain language and giving five concrete examples, but adds nothing about 'limit' beyond what the schema states.

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+resource: it searches/discoveries market-data endpoints from a plain-language query. It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_market_data by framing itself as the discovery step ('FIRST STEP') that returns endpoints rather than data, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

'FIRST STEP for any market-data question' is an explicit positional directive telling the agent when to invoke it, and the example queries illustrate expected input shape. It does not explicitly name get_market_data as the follow-up or state when not to use it, but the FIRST STEP framing makes the intended workflow clear.

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