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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses critical behavior: corpus rebuilds every 10 minutes, empty results mean no match, and the output envelope shape. It also clarifies caveats and prerequisites, adding substantial value for an agent.

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 is well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Prerequisites, Next steps, Caveats, Output, Args, Disclaimer). Every sentence provides relevant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's central role in discovery, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, alternatives, prerequisites, next steps, caveats, output shape, and parameter semantics. It is fully complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that `query` is a free-text search string supporting English/Korean and symbols like BTC/AAPL. This provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema type, though it could be slightly more detailed about expected length or formatting.

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 clearly states it is a discovery search over OneQAZ's live surface for tools, resources, and signals, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying it returns result ids consumable by the `fetch` tool. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the first step of connector-style discovery, automatically triggered by ChatGPT connectors, and suggests alternative approaches like browsing tools/list plus resources/list for MCP-native clients. It also names `fetch` as the next step, giving clear alternatives.

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