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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the tool is deprecated, not refreshed, and has a removal date. This significantly changes how an agent should treat the tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The deprecation warning and removal date are front-loaded, immediately followed by alternatives and then the search purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero schema-level descriptions, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It is strong for steering agents away, but weak on invocation semantics beyond a few filter names.

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 8 undocumented parameters. It only names four search dimensions (databank, type, provider, capability) and leaves lane, limit, modelType, and minContextWindow unexplained. It also does not clarify whether filters combine as AND/OR, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Search normalized entities by databank, type, provider, or capability.' It also names two siblings (discover_daystruct_capabilities and compat_check) and labels itself as a deprecated evidence tool, which distinguishes it from building-focused 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?

The description explicitly says the tool is deprecated, no longer refreshed, and will be removed, and it gives concrete alternatives for building: 'use discover_daystruct_capabilities and compat_check.' This is explicit when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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