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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: a hard cap of ~25 words per quote and a ~250 bytes/row size estimate for context budgeting. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or default limits, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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?

A single short sentence with the core payload (quote length, speaker, section) front-loaded and no wasted filler. The density tips into obscurity, though — 'counted under the market's scope' is not self-explanatory and spends words without transferring meaning.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with 13% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description carries most of the explanatory burden. One elliptical sentence cannot cover the filter semantics (word/call/entity/symbol/appearance) or output shape an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains call, call_id, entity, symbol, appearance, format, or limit, and the 'speaker'/'section' notions it mentions do not map clearly onto any named parameter.

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 does convey a specific resource: verbatim quotes (~25 words or fewer) tied to a speaker and section where a word occurred. However, phrases like 'counted under the market's scope' are unclear jargon, and nothing explicitly separates this from siblings such as 'word' or 'search' beyond the implied 'quotes vs counts' distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The agent must infer that this is the verbatim-citation tool while 'word' is presumably the frequency tool, and that inference rests on an ambiguous clause rather than explicit guidance.

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