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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return context (sources, tier, score, signature) and implies ranked results, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, pagination, or how ties/scores behave. Moderate added value on top of 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the first establishes what the tool searches, the second enumerates the return fields. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (sources, tier, score, signature), and the annotations cover safety while the schema covers all four parameters. Only gap is the minor 'verified facts' framing versus the unverified tier option, and no note on result ordering.

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 limit, query, category, and min_tier are all documented with defaults and constraints in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('Semantic search over DeepInquiry verified facts') and implies ranking behavior. It broadly distinguishes itself from get_fact and random_fact, but never names them or states how search differs from fetching a single or random fact. One minor tension: it says 'verified facts' while the schema permits min_tier='unverified'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling tools get_fact or random_fact, and no conditions under which this tool is the wrong choice. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the query-driven retrieval path.

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