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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond that: the live-scanner vs historical column namespaces differ, which is the main way an agent would go wrong here. Return shape is not described, but an output schema exists.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action and its search scope are front-loaded before the downstream-usage warning. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 lookup with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description supplies what is missing: what the entity is, how to search it, and where its results are used. The only fuzziness is whether the listed facets are matched against the keyword or merely present on returned records.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the searchable facets (name, display name, description, operators, value_type), which is broader than the schema's query text ('names and descriptions') and hints at what a column record carries.

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 (find) and resource (Live Scanner columns) plus the keyword fields searched. It also explicitly distinguishes these columns from the historical columns returned by search_filters, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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 clear downstream context: the returned names belong in scan_market and save_scanner_monitor filters, and they are not the same as search_filters' columns. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule (e.g. 'do not use search_filters for live scanner filters'), but the alternative is named and contextualized.

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