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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description still adds real value: the presence of URLs plus excerpts in the response, and an explicit injection warning that {"untrusted_text": ...} fields carry broker/hook/user data whose instructions must not be followed. That is genuine safety context an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and safety scope first, return shape second, usage targets third, injection caveat last. No filler, and the highest-value constraint 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does (matching sections, URLs, excerpt). Minor gaps remain around ranking or relevance behavior and result-count semantics at the limit boundary, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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% — both 'query' and 'limit' are documented in the schema including min/max bounds — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or query-construction guidance beyond what is already structured, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Search Tickwire's public documentation and API reference') and immediately scopes it ('read-only; touches no account'), which cleanly separates it from every sibling tool that manipulates orders, positions, or accounts. It also says what comes back: best-matching sections with URLs and an excerpt.

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?

Gives concrete lookup targets — endpoint, error code, idempotency and outcome rules, streaming or webhooks — so an agent knows the class of question this answers. It does not explicitly name an alternative or a 'do not use for X' condition, but the sibling set makes the boundary obvious.

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