search_finance_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses that this is a read-only search operation across all 43 tools, returns only relevant tools, and includes name, description, and expected parameters. It does not discuss exact matching semantics or edge cases, but it provides substantial behavioral context for a discovery tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage ordering, and finishes with a rationale for why the tool avoids loading the full catalog. Every sentence contributes unique value.

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 2-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, tool categories, return content, and usage order. It does not explicitly explain both parameters in prose, but the output schema and simple schema reduce that burden, making it mostly 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%, and the description only implicitly clarifies the 'query' parameter as a natural-language request. It does not mention 'top_k', its default, or how it affects the result set. The parameters are simple enough to infer, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 resource ('finance tools most relevant to a natural-language request'), clearly distinguishing this discovery tool from the execution sibling. It explicitly contrasts with execute_finance_tool by stating it returns tool metadata rather than executing, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit sequencing by saying 'Call this FIRST before execute_finance_tool,' which gives clear usage context. It also describes the broad coverage across all 43 finance tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use list_finance_categories or get_tool_schema instead, so it lacks a full alternatives exclusion.

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