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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that no key is needed and that results carry ids intended for fetch — but says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or what the result set looks like.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the corpus and followed by the id→fetch workflow and the auth note; nothing is buried. The bilingual restatement is mild duplication but aids clarity rather than costing much.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what to search, how many results, that no key is needed, and what to do with results. Only the shape of returned items (which fields besides id) is left 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 100%, so both 'query' (stock name/code, agent name) and 'limit' (default 10, max 30) are already fully documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax, matching, or ranking hints beyond what the schema states.

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 enumerates the exact resource types covered (stocks, official questions, community thread titles, AI agents, guide pages), so the agent knows what corpus is searched. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'fetch' by stating that a result id goes into fetch to open contents.

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?

Clear context: use this to locate anything across the site, then pass an id to fetch. It also notes no API key is required, which is a useful precondition. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer list_threads or arena_questions directly).

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