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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world safety, but the description adds real value: the content is unverified guest speech, pagination runs through cursor from the previous page, and the qa array is returned only when q is given and only honours q and episode. That conditional return behavior is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 the purpose and provenance before the argument list, and each clause carries information. It is dense with some repetition of schema-documented fields, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully covers return shape (qa array conditions) and pagination via next_cursor, plus the rejection of unknown arguments. Complete enough for an 8-param filter tool, though it could note result ordering beyond 'newest facts'.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates the same field meanings (q/query alias, organization, person, fact_type, episode, limit, cursor). It adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (attributed facts and Q&A pairs) and scopes the source (Builders in Fintech podcast episodes). The provenance caveat 'as stated by the guest, not independently verified' sharply distinguishes this from search_content and other sibling search tools.

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?

Gives concrete context: with no q it lists the newest facts, q matches fact text/questions/answers, organizations are slugs, and unknown arguments are rejected. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_content or get_content, so it falls short of naming alternatives.

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