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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the tool returns ids usable with fetch, but it does not disclose result limits, pagination, or any errors/edge cases. It does not contradict annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase adds information: the coverage scope and the downstream use of the returned ids. There is no repetition of the tool name or annotations.

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, read-only search tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and output, which is enough to attempt a call. However, without an output schema it only vaguely says 'returns ids,' leaving the result shape and query syntax underspecified.

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 input schema has one required string parameter, 'query', with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description mentions the searchable categories but never explains how to format query, whether it supports partial matches, wildcards, or exact identifiers, so the agent must guess at query semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Search') and a clear resource ('what this service covers'), and enumerates the dimensions it covers: symbols, dates, structures, signals, methodology. It also states the output (ids usable with fetch), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like describe_coverage or explain_methodology.

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 implies the tool is for discovering what data the service offers and for obtaining ids to use with fetch, so the intended use is inferable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and does not mention sibling tools such as describe_coverage or list_strategies.

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