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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (what AD/CVD and Section 337 cases are, ~4,386 case scale) but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or refresh behavior, so it does not go far beyond the 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 compact sentences with the action and searchable fields front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical defining the vertical is partly flavor but still earns its place by clarifying the corpus.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough scope and domain context to call it correctly. Only return-format and pagination hints are absent, which the lack of an output schema makes tolerable.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (q, limit) are already documented. The description restates the q search dimensions (investigation number / product / title) but adds no syntax, matching, or format guidance beyond the schema, so 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 (Search) plus a precise resource (USITC trade-remedy investigations) and enumerates the two case families (AD/CVD and Section 337). The domain framing makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like courts_by_party or debarments_check without opening any 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?

It states what can be searched by (investigation number, product, or title), which implies usage, but never says when to choose this tool over adjacent verticals or notes any exclusions. No alternative tool is named.

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