discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the global search scope and the XBRL behavior with `entity`, but does not mention rate limits, result format, or pagination. However, the output schema may cover return values, and the tool is read-only in nature.

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 deliver the core action and key differentiator. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the main behavior and special case with `entity`. It does not discuss how results are returned or any limitations, but the presence of an output schema suggests that information is structured elsewhere. Given the simple search nature, it is largely complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `entity` parameter in depth ('reliable way to find the exact field name for fundamentals'), and implicitly defines `query` as 'plain-English query'. It does not describe `limit`, leaving a gap.

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 'Search every source's catalog for fields matching a plain-English query.' This clearly identifies verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes from siblings by noting 'There is no per-source tool.'

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?

Explicitly says 'This is how breadth is reached. There is no per-source tool,' which tells the agent when to use this instead of per-source alternatives. Also says with `entity` set, it searches XBRL concepts as the reliable way to find exact field names for fundamentals, providing specific usage guidance.

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