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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that (e.g., pagination, rate limits, response format). With annotations present, the description doesn't contradict them and adds minimal context, so a 3 is fair.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the resource and primary filters. It could have included more guidance without becoming verbose, but the current structure is efficient. A 4 reflects its conciseness.

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 tool with eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'normalized entities' means, how the filters combine, what the response looks like, or any pagination details. The agent would have to inspect the schema and potentially experiment to use it correctly. The description fails to provide the necessary context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions four of eight parameters (databank, type, provider, capability) but gives no details about their formats, semantics, or interactions. The remaining parameters (lane, modelType, minContextWindow, limit) are undocumented in both schema and description. This is insufficient for a tool with eight optional parameters.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Search normalized entities' and lists the main filter dimensions (databank, type, provider, capability). It is distinct from sibling tools like discover_daystruct_capabilities or get_entity_evidence, though it doesn't explicitly name them. A 4 is appropriate because it's specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this search over the sibling tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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