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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: keyword matching is conjunctive ('Every keyword must match'), and results explicitly exclude personal contacts and purchase-intent claims, which is a useful scope/privacy guarantee.

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 sentences, densely packed with no filler. The core search behavior leads, followed by AND semantics, then return content and exclusions — a well front-loaded structure.

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 enumerates what each result contains (packaging format, evidence, source URL, observation date). It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior, though limit/offset are documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 the 3 baseline applies, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema does not: the AND semantics of the free-text query and the categories of text that are matched (brand name, category, format, evidence text). It also signals that format strings like 'valve bag' or 'compostable' are valid keyword inputs.

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 brands in the public flexible packaging directories') and narrows the searchable fields to brand name, category, packaging format, or evidence text. An agent can immediately tell this is a keyword search over directory brand records, distinct from list_directories (enumeration) and get_evidence_policy.

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 description gives clear context for what can be searched but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The pointer to list_directories for directory ids lives in the schema, not the description, so routing guidance is only implied.

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