Search research notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does usefully disclose the max result count and output shape ('at most three short excerpts with citations'). However, it does not disclose failure behavior, access requirements, or how the result limit relates to the limit parameter.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the return constraint is stated directly. It is concise and scannable for an agent.

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 search tool with an output schema, missing return details are less critical, but there is no explanation of the optional symbols filter or query semantics. Because annotations are absent and schema description coverage is 0%, an agent is left without enough context to reliably build 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not name or explain query or symbols; the only implicit hint is 'at most three' mapping to the limit default. Since the schema itself has no descriptions, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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 clear search action over named sources ('FuturesIntelTool or native news, announcements, and research notes') and explicitly says it returns excerpts with citations. The resource is somewhat ambiguous because 'FuturesIntelTool' is not defined, but it does differentiate from generic report tools.

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?

No guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as report_read or daily_report_context, and no exclusions or conditions. It only implies searching research content; an agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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