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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose several non-obvious behaviors: results include content snippets around matches, credentials come from the caller's OpenAny gateway, and charges/authorization are decided by the gateway. That is valuable cost/authorization context rarely found in schemas. However it omits result-count behavior and pagination limits (the cap of 50 exists only in the schema), and says nothing about failure or refund behavior on errors.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then constraints, and every sentence contributes something (capability list, non-empty body rule, return shape, auth/billing). Minor redundancy in re-listing filter names that the schema already documents, but nothing is padded or vague.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: what comes back (matching announcements with surrounding content snippets), the non-empty-body constraint, and the credential/billing model. What remains thin is result-set behavior such as sorting, paging, and the 50-result cap, which the agent must infer from the schema.

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% and every parameter is documented in detail there, including exact-vs-fuzzy matching semantics, allowed enum literals for region and exchange, date format, and search_mode scope. The description only lists the filter categories generically, adding no syntax or combination rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: search over a list of listed-company announcements, with ten named filter dimensions. That is far more informative than the title alone, which relies on the opaque abbreviation 'ssgsgg'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other search tools in the sibling list, but no sibling appears to serve the same announcement corpus, so the ambiguity cost is low.

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?

One real usage constraint is given: 'The request body must not be empty', which tells the agent it must supply at least one filter even though the schema declares zero required parameters. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool, how to combine filters, or what to do if too few or too many results return. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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