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 adds a concrete return shape ([{id,title,url,text}]), which matters because there is no output schema, and discloses the id-follow-up contract. It does not state ranking, result ordering, default or maximum limit, or what an empty result 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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts (what is searched, then what comes back). Every clause earns its place: the date hint and the fetch link both change how an agent would call the tool.

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 five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers the return value but leaves most inputs unexplained. An agent must guess the semantics of 'to', 'from', 'limit' and 'entity' before it can construct a correct 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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description bears the full burden. It only hints that 'query' accepts natural-language time expressions; 'from', 'to', 'limit' and 'entity' get no explanation at all — an agent cannot tell whether from/to are dates, ids, or free text, or what values 'entity' accepts.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and enumerates the resource classes searched: companies, executives and call transcripts. It also points at the sibling 'fetch' as the id-based follow-up, which helps disambiguate. It stops short of distinguishing itself from other lookups such as 'entity' or 'get_qa'.

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 parenthetical "('yesterday' works)" signals that free-text, natural-language queries are acceptable, and "ids work with fetch" implies the intended two-step pattern. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of which of the siblings to prefer for structured entity lookup, and no note on result limits.

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