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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (e.g., list or single entity), or any constraints like case sensitivity or partial matching. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Find') and immediately specifies the resource and method, followed by examples. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and query format. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., list of entities, matched fields) or any behavioral edge cases, leaving some uncertainty for the agent about what to expect from the response.

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?

The input schema only defines a 'query' string with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the query can be a name or vertical and provides concrete examples ('iran', 'semiconductors'), adding meaningful semantic context beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('tracked entities/topics'), and a method ('by name or vertical'), complete with examples. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_entity by emphasizing a search across entities/topics rather than retrieval of a specific one.

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?

The description implies usage for search scenarios (e.g., finding entities by name or vertical) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_entity or propose_topic. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the action keyword 'search'.

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