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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description adds meaningful context by warning that results are untrusted evidence and not instructions or malicious-IP verdicts. It also mentions cursor pagination via next_before, though the relationship to the schema's "before" parameter is not fully clarified.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. The safety caveat and pagination note are compact and relevant.

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 seven-parameter search tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives an important trust warning but omits filter semantics, time-window behavior, defaults, result structure, and how pagination tokens are actually consumed.

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% across seven parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only alludes to pagination via next_before and does not explain ip, feed, hours, limit, before, category, or include_operator_tests.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search published observations." This is clear enough to distinguish it from evidence retrieval or IP lookup siblings, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer it over those alternatives.

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 does not explain when to use this search tool versus siblings such as get_observation_evidence or lookup_observed_ip. Usage is only implied by the phrase "Search published observations," with no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.

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