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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no filters are supplied (all params optional).

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the filter list following; there is no filler. Slightly sparse in that the 'deal type' filter named is not backed by a parameter.

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 10 optional params, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the short description is minimally adequate. It omits any note about default behavior with no filters and about result limits/pagination, which an agent would want for a broad search tool.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description restates filter concepts but does not add format or syntax detail; it also mentions 'deal type' as a filter, which has no corresponding parameter in the schema, a small mismatch.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (acquisition events) and lists the filterable dimensions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like search_funding_rounds or search_agreements. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or contrast its scope, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many search_* siblings. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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