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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral rules: empty results mean the term is not approved, and the agent must not fill it in. That is real guidance beyond the structured fields, though pagination/offset bounds are left unexplained.

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 front-loaded sentences: capability, empty-query behavior, then usage. Each earns its place; 'Do not fill it in' is terse and slightly ambiguous on its own but serves the anti-hallucination intent.

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 values needn't be described, and the description covers matching semantics, browse mode, and the empty-result rule. The main omission is that accountId is the required scoping parameter and is never acknowledged.

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 has to carry the load. It clarifies that query is a literal title/content match and that an empty query plus offset browses all entries, but accountId, the 200-char maxLength, and the offset ceiling are never mentioned.

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) and concrete resources (saved entitlements, renewal offers, concession rules), plus a browse mode. It doesn't name sibling tools directly, but the closing phrase 'verify a fact before revising it' implicitly separates it from revise_approved_fact.

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 a clear trigger ('use this to verify a fact before revising it') and explains the empty-query browse case. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling alternative (e.g., get_approved_context) is named, so it stops short of the top tier.

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