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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'using AI' detail, hinting that results may be AI-ranked or curated, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential variability, rate limits, or output specifics beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that fronts the key action ('Search Gate Square content') and adds parenthetical examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential scope (content types) and technology (AI). It does not explain return value structure, but that is not required since no output schema exists. The content type list compensates for missing context, making it reasonably 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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter-specific insight.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('Gate Square content'), and elaborates on content types: 'posts, analysis, signals'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cex_square_list_live_replay, which is a list operation for a different content type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a non-AI search might be preferred. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its usage.

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