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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's contribution is the scope ('public') and the return shape (titles, snippets, alktrading.com links), which is genuinely useful with no output schema present, but it says nothing about result limits or ranking behavior.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the first defines the searchable corpus, the second defines the return shape. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity search tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and returns. It remains incomplete regarding sibling disambiguation and parameter constraints, which is the main gap given the low schema coverage.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the two parameters — and it explains neither. Nothing is said about query syntax/length constraints (min 2, max 200) or the limit parameter's default of 5 and maximum of 10, leaving the agent to read the raw schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource set — search across ALK's public articles, strategy explanations, and key pages — which reads clearly as content discovery rather than the structured lookups the siblings provide. It stops short of differentiating itself from explain_strategy or list_strategies, whose content ('strategy explanations') it explicitly claims to search.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives, even though explain_strategy and list_strategies overlap with the 'strategy explanations' corpus this tool searches. The agent must infer that this is the discovery tool and the siblings are the fetch tools.

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