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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond them: cost is free and not counted against tasks, the result includes risk/cost/arguments and an exact 'How to call' line, most tools go through a platform router, and delete requests get a special note because no tool performs them. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with a cost/safety tag and a one-line purpose before the Use when / When not / Returns structure, so an agent can scan it quickly. It is longer than strictly necessary — the returns paragraph and the delete note could be tightened — but each block carries distinct routing 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing the returned rows and the 'How to call' line, plus a failure-mode instruction to report no match and ask the user rather than invent a tool. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents query, top_k, platform and raw_data including enum values and defaults. The description restates the cross-platform default ('Searches every platform unless you pass platform') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Finds the tools that do a job, ranked') and the input basis ('from the user's own wording'). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_tool_schema by naming what that tool does that this one doesn't.

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?

Has explicit 'Use when' triggers (unknown tool, user asks for something unseen, guessed name came back unknown) and an explicit 'When not to use' that routes to the correct alternative (call the known tool, or get_tool_schema for arguments). Nothing is left to inference.

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