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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the index is partial/local, and returns are limited to counts, products, and narratives that CFPB actually published. It also points to /coverage for completeness verification, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope caveats. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (indexed complaint counts, products, narratives) and warns about data completeness. The main remaining gap is that it never says how to interpret or paginate results, but for a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Financial firm name (substring)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by company' adds only a restatement, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 and resource ('Search ... CFPB complaint index by company') and immediately qualifies the scope as MORVS's partial local index. An agent can distinguish it from generic search or other *_by_company tools without opening the schema.

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 line 'Check /coverage; this is not the full CFPB database' gives a useful precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings (doj_by_company, company_risk_flags, etc.). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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