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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context like 'Free, no wallet,' which is beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explicitly state the read-only nature or describe what the response contains, leaving some ambiguity about behavioral traits. It is not misleading, but not fully transparent.

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 succinct, with the main verb and resource in the first sentence. It then provides immediate usage guidance in a compact second paragraph. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is complete enough for a search tool with an output schema: it explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the cost (free). It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. Minor gaps include not mentioning any limitations or behavior with no results, but overall the context is 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but it provides context about the types of problems (e.g., 'a reference table, a parser') that indirectly helps understand the 'problem' parameter. This matches the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('work already done'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on finding pre-existing solutions rather than listings, stats, or demand. The context 'before you recompute it yourself' reinforces the purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when you are about to solve something a stranger has plausibly already solved') with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the clear use-case framing is strong enough to score above average.

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