Find a tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The description adds real value beyond that — ranked-by-closeness ordering, the per-result payload (name, argument signature, one-liner), and the caveat that non-matching results may still be returned. Because an output schema exists, the return-format details are partially redundant, keeping this at 3 rather than higher.

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, front-loaded with the verb and corpus scope before the routing advice, with no filler. The parenthetical pack enumeration and the trailing return-format clause make it slightly dense, but each element carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, nothing essential is missing: the corpus, query style, result ordering, payload shape and next-step routing are all covered. The one omitted parameter (limit) is fully specified in the schema with a default.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description earns the extra point by supplying concrete query examples ('deflated sharpe', 'revenue as of 2019') that demonstrate the expected natural-language phrasing, which the schema's 'What you need, in plain words' does not convey on its own.

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 (search) and a bounded resource (the 350 finance tools, enumerated by pack), which lets an agent distinguish it immediately from run_tool and describe_tool. The pack list scopes the corpus so the agent knows what is and isn't searchable.

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 routes forward: 'Next: run_tool, or describe_tool if an argument is unclear' names both alternatives and the condition that selects each. It also warns that matches come back 'even when none fits, so check them', which tells the agent to validate results rather than trust them blindly.

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