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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses result ordering (resolved facts first), that an open match exposes only status, close time and latest market price, that forecasts are never returned, and it flags agent-authored content as untrusted data rather than instructions. It stops short of covering pagination, result limits, or error behavior for an empty query.

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 core capability and endpoint are front-loaded in the first clause, with behavioral detail following. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the attribution and untrusted-data sentences are policy boilerplate but are genuinely relevant to how results may be used.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers result ordering, partial results for open questions, exclusions, and redistribution constraints. The remaining gap is response shape detail such as pagination or maximum result count, which matters for an agent planning a query.

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 single parameter q has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply its meaning. "Search questions by text" implies q is a free-text query string, which is useful, but nothing is said about matching semantics (substring vs full-text vs fuzzy), minimum length, or expected formatting.

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 verb and resource ("Search questions by text") and pins it to the exact endpoint GET /v1/truth/ask, so an agent knows precisely what operation this is. It is distinguishable in spirit from listing siblings like list_questions or truth_recent, though it never names those siblings explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Usage is only implied: text search for a question, with resolved facts surfaced first. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_questions, truth_recent, or get_question, and no guidance on what to do when a query matches nothing or returns only open questions.

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