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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context — a hard cap of 20 results and the notable constraint 'Keys and coverage only, never figures'. It does not state what happens when nothing matches.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ranking basis, with the result shape in the second. Efficient overall, though the em-dash example list adds some bulk that could be trimmed.

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 does cover the return shape (key, subject, season coverage, board) and the no-figures constraint, which is valuable. However, the near-total absence of parameter guidance leaves the agent guessing on season and subject usage for a 3-param tool.

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% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the query semantics indirectly through examples, but says nothing about the distinct roles of 'season' and 'subject', nor about the 64-character limit or the 2016-2026 season range. Two of three parameters are effectively undocumented.

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... verified metrics') plus scope: ranked text match over key, label, common names and board description. An agent can distinguish this from list_metrics, get_metric_definition, or get_entity_metrics without opening schemas.

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 topic-based discovery use case is implied by the example queries ('screens', 'blitz', 'time to throw'), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_metrics or get_metric_definition, nor any exclusion criteria. Usage must be inferred.

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