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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior by disclosing what comes back — slugs usable by get_manager/get_company and ids usable by fetch — which matters because no output schema exists. Minor gaps remain (no mention of result limits or empty-result 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 tight sentences with the core purpose first and the return-value routing second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter lookup with full annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, input, and rough return shape adequately. Only edge-case behavior (no matches, result caps) is left out, which is a small gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is already documented with examples. The description's 'by name, person or ticker' largely restates that, adding no new syntax or formatting guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find value investors (managers) and companies'), plus the matching keys (name, person, ticker). It also implicitly separates itself from siblings by noting it returns slugs for get_manager/get_company and ids for fetch, so an agent can tell it is a lookup step rather than a data-retrieval step.

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 mention that results feed get_manager, get_company, and fetch gives clear context for when to reach for this tool — before those detail tools. It stops short of naming an exclusion or a case where a sibling should be used instead, so it is strong context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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