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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description still adds real behavioral context: paginated return shape, the fields returned, the critical disambiguation that a status reflects evaluation stage rather than truth, and the caveat that Erdős-wiki archive statuses are dated at the freeze. It omits ordering/sort behavior and what happens when page exceeds the 500 cap.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with no waste: purpose first, then return shape, then the two semantic caveats that prevent misinterpretation. Nothing could be removed without losing information an agent needs.

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 10 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (paginated entries, status, observation date, link) plus the archive caveat. Only result ordering and total-count behavior are left unstated.

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 one of the ten parameters is already documented in the schema. The description mainly restates the filterable facets and adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema and the status enum already say, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (search) and a precisely scoped resource (DiscoverIA's registry of AI-assisted scientific claims) and enumerates the filterable facets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_announcement or list_statuses, leaving that inference to the name, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Omit to list everything' hints that the tool doubles as a full listing, and the status parameter points to list_statuses for valid values. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer get_announcement, recent_changes or get_frontier over this tool.

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