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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the type of information returned, which is helpful, but it does not clarify query matching behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial name), pagination, or potential missing results. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the return content, making it reasonably complete. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but the low complexity and clear schemas compensate.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'name' with the description 'Company name to search for', achieving 100% coverage. The main description adds context about M&A fields but does not enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('mergers and acquisitions data') via the FMP API. It also specifies the data returned (acquiring and targeted companies, transaction dates, SEC filing links), distinguishing it from the sibling tool getLatestMergersAcquisitions by emphasizing 'specific' search.

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 description establishes clear context: use this tool when searching for specific M&A activity rather than retrieving latest events. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the differentiation to the word 'specific'.

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