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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful data-behavior context beyond the annotations: pagination, API-only and CSV-only entries, freshness, and identity conflicts, though it does not describe return structure or pagination behavior in detail.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the catalog-search purpose. The additional sentences about entry types, freshness/identity conflicts, and risk-score exclusion each add relevant scope information without waste.

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 has three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is only partially complete: it explains the catalog contents and data-quality caveats but omits parameter semantics and return-value expectations. Annotations cover the safety profile, but schema coverage is too low for the description to leave parameters fully implicit.

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 must explain the three parameters: page, limit, and search. It only implies pagination via 'paginated' and provides no meaning for search, defaults, or limits, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 and resource: searching the paginated Ondo Global Markets catalog of tokenized securities, portfolios, and issuer-reported deployments. It is clear about scope, including API-only and CSV-only entries, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_ondo_asset or list_rwa.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search the paginated Ondo Global Markets catalog,' and the description adds an exclusion: 'This is not a list of verified risk scores.' However, it does not name when to use this tool instead of get_ondo_asset, get_ondo_asset_data, or list_rwa.

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