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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the tool is free, returns a tool recommendation rather than actual data, and should be followed by request_data when coverage is missing. Auth or rate-limit behavior is not described, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. The core action, return behavior, and fallback are all communicated efficiently.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is largely complete: it explains the routing purpose, fallback path, and cost context. A small gap remains around query syntax and matching behavior, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly.

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 query parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by saying the query can be a name or topic, but it does not explain format, examples, matching behavior, or constraints such as the 100-character limit.

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 ('find') and names the exact resource scope: covered companies, central banks, and US macro releases. It also distinguishes itself from retrieval siblings by stating that it 'Returns the tool to call,' and it names the fallback sibling request_data for missing coverage.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: when looking up a covered entity or release by name or topic. It also names the alternative request_data for missing items, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare against other siblings.

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