search_concept

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low; the description adds the concrete result cap ('Returns up to 10 matches'), which is genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations. It omits matching behavior (prefix vs. fuzzy, case sensitivity), so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then usage condition. No filler, every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description still covers scope, result limit, and input format. Only minor gaps remain (match semantics, case handling).

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 0% for the single `query` parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names both accepted input forms (plain English like 'Costs and Expenses' and bare codes like 'TOTAL_ASSETS'). It could add matching semantics but the format guidance is solid.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Hub-Equity standardized hub concepts by code or label'), so an agent knows exactly what domain is being searched. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from potential siblings like get_extension_concepts or find_entity, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use this when you don't know the exact `hub_concept_code`' gives a clear triggering condition for the tool. It implies the alternative path (when you do know the code, look it up directly) without naming the specific sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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