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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only.' It adds useful scope information—'platform-wide' and the kind of results included—but does not disclose result size, ordering, or failure behavior. With annotations covering the main safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key usage cue, 'Before estimating.' Both sentences contribute meaningful scope information, and there is no obvious filler or redundancy beyond what annotations already state.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description leaves 'k' undefined and does not tell the agent what result shape to expect. It orients the agent on why to call the tool but not enough to confidently set all parameter values.

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 the three parameters. It loosely maps to 'objective' and 'dataset_ref' via 'how did we answer this objective before, on this data or any data?', but it says nothing about 'k', its default, or how these parameters affect the search. This is minimal added meaning over the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to find how a given objective was answered before, by searching prior packages and library runs. It names the resource and scope (platform-wide, read-only) and is clearly distinct in spirit from estimation/execution siblings, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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 phrase 'Before estimating' gives a clear contextual trigger for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as discover_tools or run_analysis, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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