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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that results are paginated and account-scoped, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about default page size, sort behavior, or result shape.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The only cost is that the second sentence spends its budget on filters that don't map to real parameters.

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?

Filter semantics are essential for a 6-parameter, 0%-coverage search tool, and the description both omits sort/limit/offset meaning and names filters that aren't in the schema. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input picture is incomplete and partly inaccurate.

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 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden — but it partly misleads, advertising 'price bounds' and 'whether logbooks are attached' filters that do not exist in the schema. It also omits any semantics for sort, limit, and offset, leaving a reader likely to attempt unsupported arguments.

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 plus resource ('Paginated search over appraisal/valuation reports') and scopes it to reports the account can access. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_report beyond the search/get verb pair, so the reader must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this instead of get_report or search_aircraft, and no preconditions (e.g., needing a known report id) are stated. Only the access scope 'your account can access' hints at applicability.

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