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 value by disclosing that an empty query with offset browses all entries and that an empty result must NOT be treated as license to invent content. It doesn't mention result ordering or pagination limits beyond the offset param.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the search/browse behavior first and the guardrail last; every sentence adds a distinct piece of information with no filler. Minor choppiness in "Do not fill it in." but it earns its place as a hallucination guard.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description still clarifies the key edge case (empty result semantics). The one gap is the required productId parameter, whose role the agent must infer rather than read.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the query param (literal title or content match, empty = browse all) and offset (browse every entry), but never explains productId, the only required parameter, leaving its scoping role to inference from the tool name.

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 (search/browse) and the resource domain (saved metrics, customer proof, discount rules), plus the literal title/content matching semantics. This clearly separates it from siblings like record_approved_metric, revise_approved_fact, and get_fact_history without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives explicit context ("Use this to verify a fact before revising it") and an important behavioral rule (an empty result means the fact is not approved, so don't fill it in). It does not name alternative siblings such as get_approved_context or get_fact_history for related lookups, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative routing.

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