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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination behavior, result caps, or scope limits — so it earns little credit on top of structured metadata.

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, front-loaded with purpose then filter dimensions, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence largely duplicates schema content.

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 fully-optional-parameter search tool with complete schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks any guidance on defaults (e.g., the 20-result limit), result handling, or how to choose among sibling search tools, which an agent would need to call it well.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema with examples. The description only restates three of the eight filter dimensions (type, company names, date range) and adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (search) and resource (partnership agreements and strategic alliances), and the filter dimensions are named. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_acquisitions and search_funding_rounds, but the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites or typical workflows. The only usage signal is an implied one from the filter list.

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